# Westminster rewards cruelty



## Bones (Sep 11, 2009)

http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2012/02/westminster-rewards-cruelty.html

SHAME ON THEM! SHAAAAMEEEE!!!


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Not surprised. At all.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

I wondered when this was going to come out. Bunch of people on the WKC chatter was talking up a storm about this yesterday. Every other post was about him and the unethical breeding.


----------



## AussieOwner (Apr 29, 2011)

The very epitome of pretentious people.


----------



## Bordermom (Apr 28, 2010)

It's not the show's fault, I don't think they can turn away entries based on ethics. If they could a lot more dogs would likely be excluded! I can think of some kennels that produce masses of dogs, yes they show them, but still, not ethical IMO. 

It's the akc and the breeders, the akc for not seeing past the dollar signs and wanting money from puppy mills etc. that breed registered dogs, and the breeders. There's a lot of breeders who will agree to what testing should be done to better the breed, but would scream 'unfair' at the thought of those being manditory and not their option to do.

In some kennel clubs, like the KC in England, a merle/merle breeding would not be registered. Other kennel clubs go further with temperament testing and such, you can't breed unless your dog passes. AKC just wants one clearance, the payment for the papers.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

How would the judge know that that dog had a double merle sire? 

I don't have to say that I think producing double merles in most breeds is atrocious. I've posted enough anti double merle breeding posts that I'm sure people know where I stand on that. I did know that the collie was the son of that dog and was saddened by it when I saw him. But really there is no way to tell if a dog's sire is a deformed double merle. A double merle bred to a solid will produce perfectly normal pups.

RTA: Now, I do think there should be something done to prevent the registration of dogs like Avalanche and his progeny in the first place.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

How exactly was Westminster rewarding cruelty?


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> How would the judge know that that dog had a double merle sire?
> 
> I don't have to say that I think producing double merles in most breeds is atrocious. I've posted enough anti double merle breeding posts that I'm sure people know where I stand on that. I did know that the collie was the son of that dog and was saddened by it when I saw him. But really there is no way to tell if a dog's sire is a deformed double merle. A double merle bred to a solid will produce perfectly normal pups.
> 
> RTA: Now, I do think there should be something done to prevent the registration of dogs like Avalanche and his progeny in the first place.


^This, including the last line.

Put the blame where it belongs on this one -- the breeders intentionally breeding double merles, and the people breeding to the double merle and therefore supporting the practice. I don't think the double-merle sire should not be registerable, but really people, especially experienced people, should NOT have to be told they shouldn't breed merle to merle.


----------



## Bordermom (Apr 28, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> RTA: Now, I do think there should be something done to prevent the registration of dogs like Avalanche and his progeny in the first place.


I totally agree, I think kennel clubs today should have rules in place to prevent unethical/unhealthy breeding practices. But time and time again I hear breeders say 'I know it's wrong and I'd never do it myself or agree with anyone doing it, but it shouldn't be a rule that we can't do it, nobody should tell me who I can and can't breed!'....


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I completely disagree with the title of the article.

While people may know individual dogs, nobody knows the parents of every dog (not all breeding dogs are exhibited in conformation) or the circumstances behind the breeding.

The judge awarded a Collie he/she thought was deserving. End of story.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

I believe the breeders are clearly unethical, that's something for their BREED CLUB to penalize, not the AKC. 



Laurelin said:


> How would the judge know that that dog had a double merle sire?


And finally THIS. Unless the judge knew the breeder, how would he know who the sire was. 

Is this dog worthy of winning BOB? He's certainly a beautiful dog, I don't know the breed well enough to say whether he's correct conformationally or not, that's something the judge WILL know however and I'll have to take his decision as this dog is more correct than the others being shown in the ring at the time.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Xeph said:


> I completely disagree with the title of the article.


 
Yeah, sounds like a pro-PETA tag line to me.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

It's funny how anyone concerned with what happens to dogs is tagged as "pro-PETA". I don't think that's useful.

Well, this is bad. Because now that one person won with the offspring of a double merle, a lot more people are going to do it. Nice.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Not neccesarily, the fact is there are a HELL ofa lot of people in the know that are coming out and questioning the ethics of the breeding.

Also, the reason it sounds so Pro AR to me and others is because this is ONE dog, in ONE breed, NOT the whole show and yet other, very ethical breeders and WKC itself is being painted with the same brush.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> now that one person won with the offspring of a double merle, a lot more people are going to do it. Nice.


Really? How do you know this?



> I don't think that's useful.


It's not useful for people to call the dogs of others "freaks" or "frog dogs" either, and then still expect those people to listen to what's being said. Still happens anyway.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Really? How do you know this?


In all competitions, the people who win are those who are willing to do anything to win. If they see someone win by doing something unethical (and getting away with it), there may be some who will not follow suit. . .but many will. It's human nature.



> It's not useful for people to call the dogs of others "freaks" or "frog dogs" either, and then still expect those people to listen to what's being said. Still happens anyway.


If they expressed their concerns in a less insulting manner, would those people listen then? Probably not. Nobody listens to what they don't want to hear.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

I still fail to see how this is westminster's fault? The judges don't know the dogs, so how did "westminster reward cruelty"?


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> I still fail to see how this is westminster's fault? The judges don't know the dogs, so how did "westminster reward cruelty"?


Quoted for truth.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> would those people listen then?


Maybe not. But they're more likely to.

Every time somebody insults my breed, I am no longer inclined to listen to them. They may have something of value to say, but I'm not going to listen to them degrade my dogs. I love my dogs, and try to do the best I can for them.

Many people here know how much I want to change things in my breed, but I cannot do it by myself, and the more people try to FORCE others to see that they are right, the longer it will take.

There's a big hullabaloo going on in the GSDCA right now due to a recent board decision that was made to allow all dogs with DQ faults take PC (parent club) awards in performance. If people can't agree on that, or that white dogs deserve to be exhibited in conformation too, what makes others think that they can put out glaring exposes, call breeders nasty names, and then expect REAL change?


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Having read a lot of the BorderWars stuff over the years, I would say that the title is not so much AR as Anti-AKC. It might be used by AR, yes, but the owner of the BW blog is most definitely NOT a PETA type. If you read the whole piece I think it's more that he's saying AKC and CCA could have and should have kept the offspring of this dog from being in the ring in the first place, and therefore they failed and are de facto rewarding it. Also, he's being sensationalistic. But the heart of the text and the related blogs blame the breeders involved. 

Which should also not be confused with breeders in general, before anything heads down that path.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

I agree that this is a breeder/breed club problem and not an AKC/Westminster problem.

I want to comment on the breeders: How can they breed a dog like Avalanche and say they're being respectable Collie breeders?? Not only did they purposefully create a handicapped, suffering dog with a lowered quality of life, but the fact that they're breeding him with no testing means that they can't be breeding with health in mind for the offspring. And also, how in the world can they determine if this dog has a good temperament and intelligence? Isn't their wonderful temperament and keen intelligence what Collies are famous for? How in the world can they claim to be breeding Collies if they breed a deaf and blind dog that can't even function as a Collie??


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

Willowy said:


> It's funny how anyone concerned with what happens to dogs is tagged as "pro-PETA". I don't think that's useful.


This. I'm sitting out on this debate, because I already know how most of the comments are going to play out, but yeah. I noticed this and find it funny too, if not kind of sad.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Nargle said:


> I agree that this is a breeder/breed club problem and not an AKC/Westminster problem.
> 
> I want to comment on the breeders: How can they breed a dog like Avalanche and say they're being respectable Collie breeders?? Not only did they purposefully create a handicapped, suffering dog with a lowered quality of life, but the fact that they're breeding him with no testing means that they can't be breeding with health in mind for the offspring. And also, how in the world can they determine if this dog has a good temperament and intelligence? Isn't their wonderful temperament and keen intelligence what Collies are famous for? How in the world can they claim to be breeding Collies if they breed a deaf and blind dog that can't even function as a Collie??


^This.......


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Nargle said:


> I agree that this is a breeder/breed club problem and not an AKC/Westminster problem.
> 
> I want to comment on the breeders: How can they breed a dog like Avalanche and say they're being respectable Collie breeders?? Not only did they purposefully create a handicapped, suffering dog with a lowered quality of life, but the fact that they're breeding him with no testing means that they can't be breeding with health in mind for the offspring. And also, how in the world can they determine if this dog has a good temperament and intelligence? Isn't their wonderful temperament and keen intelligence what Collies are famous for? How in the world can they claim to be breeding Collies if they breed a deaf and blind dog that can't even function as a Collie??


They can't. They are just as bad as the Puppy mills and BYB IMO, IF I were looking at owning this breed I'd run far away from them and any lines they are involed in breeding.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

cshellenberger said:


> They can't. They are just as bad as the Puppy mills and BYB IMO, IF I were looking at owning this breed I'd run far away from them and any lines they are involed in breeding.


And how are the many, many pet buyers out there looking for a Collie supposed to know they should run away fast from this type of breeder? What indications will the average 'not know alot about dogs' pet buyer be able to see that would help them understand that supporting these breeders is akin to supporting substandard commercial operations? What information is out there to make someone aware they should be wary even when approaching those that claim they are breeding 'the best' and have the accolades to show they win the top competitions?

SOB


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Nargle said:


> I agree that this is a breeder/breed club problem and not an AKC/Westminster problem.
> 
> I want to comment on the breeders: How can they breed a dog like Avalanche and say they're being respectable Collie breeders?? Not only did they purposefully create a handicapped, suffering dog with a lowered quality of life, but the fact that they're breeding him with no testing means that they can't be breeding with health in mind for the offspring. And also, how in the world can they determine if this dog has a good temperament and intelligence? Isn't their wonderful temperament and keen intelligence what Collies are famous for? How in the world can they claim to be breeding Collies if they breed a deaf and blind dog that can't even function as a Collie??


Unfortunately it's not an isolated case. I know of sheltie breeders that did the same types of breedings.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> It's funny how anyone concerned with what happens to dogs is tagged as "pro-PETA". I don't think that's useful.
> 
> Well, this is bad. Because now that one person won with the offspring of a double merle, a lot more people are going to do it. Nice.



This is a TWO way street...... What strikes me funny is that some folks take every opportunity to bash well bred dogs (this is not one of them), the AKC, conformation, etc.


This is not a Westminster issue.....
Certainly not a judge issue.......
And not an AKC issue......

Comparing how the AKC manages issues to how the Kennel Club in the UK does it is not valid.

With the AKC, this is a breed club responsibility. 

It is up to the Breed club to deal with this issue? Will they? Probably not. But no matter..... No decent breeder is going to breed to their dogs nwo.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> This is a TWO way street...... What strikes me funny is that some folks take every opportunity to bash well bred dogs (this is not one of them), the AKC, conformation, etc.
> 
> 
> This is not a Westminster issue.....
> ...


Very well said


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

spanielorbust said:


> And how are the many, many pet buyers out there looking for a Collie supposed to know they should run away fast from this type of breeder? What indications will the average 'not know alot about dogs' pet buyer be able to see that would help them understand that supporting these breeders is akin to supporting substandard commercial operations? What information is out there to make someone aware they should be wary even when approaching those that claim they are breeding 'the best' and have the accolades to show they win the top competitions?
> 
> SOB


Perhaps a well written article about WHY the breeding is wrong that doesn't bash RESPONSIBLE breeders, the AKC and Westminster. Educate people on the difference instead of bashing and generalizing and putting out headlines that sound like they come from an AR group trying to put an end to the exhibiting and breeding of purbred dogs. 

CONSUMER EDUCATION is a vital weapon to ending bad breeding practices, but it should be done in COOPERATION with responsible breeders and rescuers.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

spanielorbust said:


> And how are the many, many pet buyers out there looking for a Collie supposed to know they should run away fast from this type of breeder? What indications will the average 'not know alot about dogs' pet buyer be able to see that would help them understand that supporting these breeders is akin to supporting substandard commercial operations? What information is out there to make someone aware they should be wary even when approaching those that claim they are breeding 'the best' and have the accolades to show they win the top competitions?
> 
> SOB


While I understand where people are coming from when they say that the AKC and dog shows should do something about educating people on the unethical practices used by some of the breeders that use their services, I can also understand those who say it is not the AKC or Westminster's responsibility to police breeding practices or even make judgements about a breeders ethical choices. The AKC's purpose is to register purebred dogs and the purpose of dog shows is to evaluate the conformation of a breeder's stock. Those are both just services that a breeder uses for their own convenience. Personally I don't know whose responsibility it is to guide potential buyers towards ethical breeders, but I'm inclined to think that it would be the breed's parent club. That is who decides the breed's code of ethics anyways. Perhaps it would be easier for the average pet dog buyer to understand the difference between an ethical breeder and those they would do best to avoid if the breed's parent club were oriented towards educating them?


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Nargle said:


> While I understand where people are coming from when they say that the AKC and dog shows should do something about educating people on the unethical practices used by some of the breeders that use their services, I can also understand those who say it is not the AKC or Westminster's responsibility to police breeding practices or even make judgements about a breeders ethical choices. The AKC's purpose is to register purebred dogs and the purpose of dog shows is to evaluate the conformation of a breeder's stock. Those are both just services that a breeder uses for their own convenience. Personally I don't know whose responsibility it is to guide potential buyers towards ethical breeders, but I'm inclined to think that it would be the breed's parent club. That is who decides the breed's code of ethics anyways. Perhaps it would be easier for the average pet dog buyer to understand the difference between an ethical breeder and those they would do best to avoid if the breed's parent club were oriented towards educating them?


Unfortunately, I think if the AKC continues to act as "just a registry," they will also continue to have declining registrations and declining revenues. I'm not sure about parent clubs giving out information about ethical breeders - it seems to me that there is a real reluctance by breeders to speak out about others breeding practices.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Unfortunately it's not an isolated case. I know of sheltie breeders that did the same types of breedings.


Harlequin Great Danes are made in the same way, that entire color family is built on breeding for double merle. Regular Merles aren't even an accepted color in the breed, which is very stupid imo.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

brandiw said:


> Unfortunately, I think if the AKC continues to act as "just a registry," they will also continue to have declining registrations and declining revenues. I'm not sure about parent clubs giving out information about ethical breeders - it seems to me that there is a real reluctance by breeders to speak out about others breeding practices.


Go to a breed specific forum and you'll certainly get the lowdown, If there's a controversy in the breed you'll quickly learn about it.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

cshellenberger said:


> Go to a breed specific forum and you'll certainly get the lowdown, If there's a controversy in the breed you'll quickly learn about it.


Actually, I do read a couple breed-specific forums for breeds that I am interested in, and many of the breeders there won't say any specific negative things about other breeders, and the things they do tend to bring up seem to be more personality issues rather than true breeding problems. 

I love bassets, but I truly doubt that I will ever buy a basset hound (there are too many in rescue), but I did toy with the idea at one time. The things that I found on good/bad breeders were like following crumbs. It took forever to find information, and I had to dig and dig and dig. Frankly, most people just aren't going to go to that much trouble.

I truly don't understand how those not "in the know" would know how to find out information on good breeders. How many of those type of questions do we see here in this forum?


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> I still fail to see how this is westminster's fault? The judges don't know the dogs, so how did "westminster reward cruelty"?


This.

Blaming Westminster is what causes this to sound por-AR. One unethical breeder does not represent all breeders, judges, etc. 

Also, I know that some breed clubs can blacklist a breeder. That may or may not be the case for the collie club.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

cshellenberger said:


> Perhaps a well written article about WHY the breeding is wrong that doesn't bash RESPONSIBLE breeders, the AKC and Westminster. Educate people on the difference instead of bashing and generalizing and putting out headlines that sound like they come from an AR group trying to put an end to the exhibiting and breeding of purbred dogs.
> 
> CONSUMER EDUCATION is a vital weapon to ending bad breeding practices, but it should be done in COOPERATION with responsible breeders and rescuers.


Do you believe that 'responsible breeders' are ready and willing to cooperate with educating buyers about bad breeding practices IF it includes implicating some of their own? Personally, I do not. I've SEEN that they do not. I was on lists when Carol Fowler was being accused of having Manchausen by Proxy (I can email the links if you'd like). I was on lists when other pet owners were being called out and threatened for accidentally identifying the affix name of their afflicted dogs. I was on lists when Margaret Carter was getting dissed for educating about the CM/SM problem in Cavaliers and attempting to get breeders to MRI. I was on lists when Beverly Costello was defended for breeding Beauella Radzinski and when the power players were making mud of Margaret's name for bringing syringomyelia to the attention of puppy buyers. I remain on lists where pet owners are dissed and told they know nothing when they ask why dogs are bred under 30 months of age when that is the minimum recommended by researchers.

These power players in some clubs absolutely do not want to educate. That is the last thing they want. What they do want is to sell their stock and they are afraid of the prestige or the value they will lose if difficulties in their clubs or their breeds are publicized.

That is why, I believe, people have given up on that idea of getting clubs and registries to cooperate (it is called frustration) and are going for what gets attention to the problem. 

It is not as if these complaints are new! We knew in the 70s that MM produced blind and deaf FFS.

A Terrible Beauty - Time - came out in 1994. There is much written and even on video prior and since that show how long these troubles have been known, and how long they have continued WITHOUT ANY ACTION to educate about them. If anything the greatest action has been to remain in DENIAL while many involved continue to promote breed clubs as 'the place' to get information and find breeder referrals even when those clubs are very deliberately glossing over the breed problems.

SOB


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

I don't know about the breeds you're interested in, but in Mastiffs and Dobermans you'll DAMN sure hear who the good breeders and who the bad breeders are. I know of line in Mastiffs I once dreamed of owning due to type only to find out the line is known for aggression or serious health conditions. The breeders may not always talk about it publically, but if you get into some of the chats you'll find out. Honestly I think breeders would talk more about it but fear giving fuel to the AR and anti conformation groups. Especailly when stories like this come out bashing all breeders and the KC.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> In all competitions, the people who win are those who are willing to do anything to win. If they see someone win by doing something unethical (and getting away with it), there may be some who will not follow suit. . .but many will. It's human nature.
> 
> 
> If they expressed their concerns in a less insulting manner, would those people listen then? Probably not. Nobody listens to what they don't want to hear.


You seem to have a way of thinking the absolute worst about people. Maybe it's where you live, or what goes on in your life, I don't know. I think people will breed to what standard they breed to, and if it's against their ethics, they aren't going to do it to win. And those who win by taking short cuts may not be winning very long. I watched two days of Westminster, and while I wasn't thrilled with the Peke winning, the great majority of the dogs I saw selected out of their breed looked healthy and functional. Every year at this time, the ARs are out and trying to discredit shows and breeders. By the way, was that an AR looney who was being forcably escorted out when they were introducing the BIS judge?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> It's funny how anyone concerned with what happens to dogs is tagged as "pro-PETA". I don't think that's useful.
> 
> Well, this is bad. Because now that one person won with the offspring of a double merle, a lot more people are going to do it. Nice.


Only when they are shrilling "Westminster Rewards Cruelty" By the way - Avalanche's sire? Sable. Could be a sable merle, I suppose.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> By the way, was that an AR looney who was being forcably escorted out when they were introducing the BIS judge?


I believe it was.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Pawzk9 said:


> Only when they are shrilling "Westminster Rewards Cruelty" By the way - Avalanche's sire? Sable. Could be a sable merle, I suppose.


I thought that there was a genetic test for the merle gene? I have no idea I could be wrong though


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Well, what was that on the breeder's site about how "only experienced breeders should attempt a double-merle breeding and we had our reasons"? Is it the dog in the show that's a double-merle or his father?


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Well, what was that on the breeder's site about how "only experienced breeders should attempt a double-merle breeding and we had our reasons"? Is it the dog in the show that's a double-merle or his father?


Wyndlair's Avalanche, is the supposed double merle (deaf and blind) sire of the collie that went BOB at westminster.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Wyndlair's Avalanche, is the supposed double merle (deaf and blind) sire of the collie that went BOB at westminster.


That's what I thought, and I went back and read the breeder's letter again to be sure. I don't know what's "supposed" about it because they specifically say they deliberately did a merle/merle breeding and got Avalanche.

LOL about the "you must be an unhappy person" thing (in the other breeder's letter). I guess if people disagree with you they're automatically unhappy? Hehe.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Willowy said:


> That's what I thought, and I went back and read the breeder's letter again to be sure. I don't know what's "supposed" about it because they specifically say they deliberately did a merle/merle breeding and got Avalanche.
> 
> LOL about the "you must be an unhappy person" thing (in the other breeder's letter). I guess if people disagree with you they're automatically unhappy? Hehe.


I'm reading it over again, and I have absolutely no idea where I was going with that, idk its late and I have a headache guess its that talking lol.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

I'm just amused at the statement 'only experienced breeders' should do MxM. Because having 'experience' magically reduces the chance of blind/deaf puppies from happening? That's like saying 'only experienced breeders should breed two dogs with PRA'. Whether its an experienced breeder or a BYB, the result is exactly the same. Show Collie people can't look down their nose at all those 'unethical pet breeders making double merles' while celebrating people within their own ranks who do the same damn thing.


----------



## Bordermom (Apr 28, 2010)

If you do some research, reading and observe, you can tell who is a good breeder and who is not. There is one breeder I met through facebook, seemed very nice, all up and up, but the longer she's been on my facebook, the less respect I have for her. The red flags include dogs on her website with no clearances, no pedigrees listed (for some she will email you the pedigree but it's not out in the open - who really cares???), lots and lots of litters born.... adult dogs for sale that she's grown out/didn't sell as pups....

Also keep in mind that as breeders, it's not always easy/ethical to say 'avoid Jane the breeder, she doesn't test for this/that' - it's a small world and you don't want some of these people on the warpath. Some of the stories I've heard are things like creating a scene outside the ring when the dog is in the ring, so they spook and don't show well, saying things out loud to people who were asking about puppies with other breeders, getting another breeder's pup in for grooming, knowing the dog is going to be entered and shaving it down then pretending it was a mistake, and simply bashing that person to anyone who inquires about puppies - often people will go through the breeder's listing and send all the breeders an email, some breeders got caught writing back saying 'avoid so and so, they have cancer/aggression/eye issues - oh my dogs are perfect!'. I've also heard where some breeders have looked up puppy owners who bought from other people (keeping the email addresses of people who inquired etc.) and phoning them to tell them stories to cause trouble (again, person got caught because the people kept the recording of her on their answering machine posing as the breeder and saying the puppy had health issues and needed to be returned).

Plus it's like any business, you don't get a good name by bashing everyone else. In the end people are often going with whoever is cheapest and has puppies for sale first, and don't look for health and ethics.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

spanielorbust said:


> Do you believe that 'responsible breeders' are ready and willing to cooperate with educating buyers about bad breeding practices IF it includes implicating some of their own? Personally, I do not. I've SEEN that they do not. I was on lists when Carol Fowler was being accused of having Manchausen by Proxy (I can email the links if you'd like). I was on lists when other pet owners were being called out and threatened for accidentally identifying the affix name of their afflicted dogs. I was on lists when Margaret Carter was getting dissed for educating about the CM/SM problem in Cavaliers and attempting to get breeders to MRI. I was on lists when Beverly Costello was defended for breeding Beauella Radzinski and when the power players were making mud of Margaret's name for bringing syringomyelia to the attention of puppy buyers. I remain on lists where pet owners are dissed and told they know nothing when they ask why dogs are bred under 30 months of age when that is the minimum recommended by researchers.
> 
> These power players in some clubs absolutely do not want to educate. That is the last thing they want. What they do want is to sell their stock and they are afraid of the prestige or the value they will lose if difficulties in their clubs or their breeds are publicized.
> 
> ...


It doesn't get said often enough...

SOB, in thread after thread, you have the best, most well-written, most thoughtful, most informative posts. Thank you.


----------



## Kelly_Bryan (Feb 15, 2012)

Hi there, i'm new here, where i can introduce myself? Sorry if this question out of topic, because i confuse 
thanks before.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Kelly_Bryan said:


> Hi there, i'm new here, where i can introduce myself? Sorry if this question out of topic, because i confuse
> thanks before.


This would probably be a good place, make sure you start at the top sticky about the forum rules.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> I don't know about the breeds you're interested in, but in Mastiffs and Dobermans you'll DAMN sure hear who the good breeders and who the bad breeders are. I know of line in Mastiffs I once dreamed of owning due to type only to find out the line is known for aggression or serious health conditions. The breeders may not always talk about it publically, but if you get into some of the chats you'll find out. Honestly I think breeders would talk more about it but fear giving fuel to the AR and anti conformation groups. Especailly when stories like this come out bashing all breeders and the KC.


When I was researching breeders, those I consulted on breed-specific forums were fairly open about recommending specific breeders and suggesting I avoid others. Certainly some of the advice was given in private and certainly people have different ideas of what makes a reputable, ethical breeder, but it wasn't difficult for me to compile a list of 4-5 breeders in my general region who were well respected and 4-5 who should be avoided. On the forums for my breed, there is information - both general guidelines and names of specific kennels - about breeding practices readily available.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Well, what was that on the breeder's site about how "only experienced breeders should attempt a double-merle breeding and we had our reasons"? Is it the dog in the show that's a double-merle or his father?


The sire. The dog in the show was Mm


----------



## agility collie mom (Jan 26, 2008)

As a rough collie lover and Mom this saddens me. Now that a double merle has won best of breed all the byb and puppy mills will start to breed for this color because there will be a demand. We recently had a litter of double merle rescue puppies come in to the clinic I work at. Mom was a stray, pregnant, unknown to her rescuer she was to whelp dm puppies. They all had neuro problems of the five one died shortly after birth, two are blind, one is deaf and blind.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Bordermom said:


> If you do some research, reading and observe, you can tell who is a good breeder and who is not. There is one breeder I met through facebook, seemed very nice, all up and up, but the longer she's been on my facebook, the less respect I have for her. The red flags include dogs on her website with no clearances, no pedigrees listed (for some she will email you the pedigree but it's not out in the open - who really cares???), lots and lots of litters born.... adult dogs for sale that she's grown out/didn't sell as pups....
> 
> Plus it's like any business, you don't get a good name by bashing everyone else. In the end people are often going with whoever is cheapest and has puppies for sale first, and don't look for health and ethics.


If they don't put the health clearances and pedigrees on the website, but will share with you if you are truly an interested party, what's the big deal with that. Would you prefer that she kill the adult dogs or let them live their lives in kennels? What is wrong with selling them. Thing is, there are dog trainers in my area whose methods I don't like (hate). But I'm not going to dis them publically, because A) it's unprofessional and B) they would sue the sh*t out of me if I couldn't absolutely prove it. However, it's pretty possible to feel me out and find out what I really think,.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

agility collie mom said:


> As a rough collie lover and Mom this saddens me. Now that a double merle has won best of breed all the byb and puppy mills will start to breed for this color because there will be a demand. We recently had a litter of double merle rescue puppies come in to the clinic I work at. Mom was a stray, pregnant, unknown to her rescuer she was to whelp dm puppies. They all had neuro problems of the five one died shortly after birth, two are blind, one is deaf and blind.


A double merle did not win best of breed. The dog that won best of breed was a regular blue merle. The dog's sire was a double merle. Double merles are DQ'd and not eligible to be shown in both shelties and collies (and pretty much any other breed I can think of off the top of my head).


----------



## Bordermom (Apr 28, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> If they don't put the health clearances and pedigrees on the website, but will share with you if you are truly an interested party, what's the big deal with that. Would you prefer that she kill the adult dogs or let them live their lives in kennels? What is wrong with selling them. Thing is, there are dog trainers in my area whose methods I don't like (hate). But I'm not going to dis them publically, because A) it's unprofessional and B) they would sue the sh*t out of me if I couldn't absolutely prove it. However, it's pretty possible to feel me out and find out what I really think,.


It just seems odd that she has some of her dogs with pedigrees, and clearances, but not all - not consistant. And while she does say 'ofa good' on some of the dogs there's no way to go onto the database and confirm that as none of her dogs show up there. 

As for selling them, I'm not saying that's bad, but it appears to me that she's breeding a lot of litters per year (5-7), often without any pups spoken for at birth and then constantly selling off adult dogs. Not one dog a year or at a time, but usually a dozen or so dogs of different ages. She'll say she's cutting back on dogs because she doesn't have time, then breed two litters and keep five puppies to grow them out, purchase a dog and then the dog is up for sale a few months later.....


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Bordermom said:


> If you do some research, reading and observe, you can tell who is a good breeder and who is not. There is one breeder I met through facebook, seemed very nice, all up and up, but the longer she's been on my facebook, the less respect I have for her. The red flags include dogs on her website with no clearances, no pedigrees listed (for some she will email you the pedigree but it's not out in the open - who really cares???), lots and lots of litters born.... adult dogs for sale that she's grown out/didn't sell as pups....


Honestly the only thing therer tht would red flag for me is the lots of litters, but I would then take a look at when they were bred (how far apart on each bitch) and of their male was siring outside and they coowned part of them (so not born in house). I know ALOT of great breeders that do not post their clearances nor the pedigrees as people will attemt to lift that information to pass off lesser puppies. They will give you the info IF you're interested in a pup. As faras teh Adults for sale, again I have NO problem with that. Sometimes dogs don't work out for show or for breeding and the breeder can't keep them or it could well be that the dog has been RETURNED to the breeder and is being rehomed.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Ok I just want to say I do not think anyone here is agreeing with this breeder that this was a good breeding, in fact lots have said stuff to the contruary of that. What people are saying is to put the blame where it belongs, a concept many fail to grasp. And that is really the bottem line. This breeder made a poor decision to breed two generations of merle to merle, blame them not WKC.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Shaina said:


> Having read a lot of the BorderWars stuff over the years, I would say that the title is not so much AR as Anti-AKC. It might be used by AR, yes, but the owner of the BW blog is most definitely NOT a PETA type. If you read the whole piece I think it's more that he's saying AKC and CCA could have and should have kept the offspring of this dog from being in the ring in the first place, and therefore they failed and are de facto rewarding it. Also, he's being sensationalistic. But the heart of the text and the related blogs blame the breeders involved.
> 
> Which should also not be confused with breeders in general, before anything heads down that path.


That is exactly what I get from the piece. Of course it is already being declared this is about 'breeders in general'. Lets pretend that, get defensive and argue that point so we don't really have to look closely at what is going on. :frusty:



Pai said:


> I'm just amused at the statement 'only experienced breeders' should do MxM. Because having 'experience' magically reduces the chance of blind/deaf puppies from happening? That's like saying 'only experienced breeders should breed two dogs with PRA'. Whether its an experienced breeder or a BYB, the result is exactly the same. Show Collie people can't look down their nose at all those 'unethical pet breeders making double merles' while celebrating people within their own ranks who do the same damn thing.


This provides even more amusement.

_"*USAcollies.com* are proud to present an interview with one of the most respected names in the collie world, both as a breeder, handler and more recently as a judge. Matthew Stelter of Wyndlair Collies shares his experiences and insight with our readers."

. . . 

"It is rewarding when established breeders seek out your dogs to provide the virtues that we have worked to create. We have always looked to Wyndlair Avalanche (Ch. Southland’s Beyond The Glory ex Ch. Twin City Wyndlair Anthem) to be a pivotal sire for us. Now, as his first puppies have completed their championships, he is becoming a very sought-after sire nationwide. "​_
http://usacollies.com/wyndlair.html

Sure. Trusting those most invested in the breed to correctly identify the 'better' breeders is the way to go. 

If we do not have a registration or club system that has any teeth - and that seems to be admitted - then we need to advise caution to any person looking for a pet. It needs to be understood that some clubs are great and others absolutely suck. People not only need to be steered in the direction of caution when dealing with non-club breeders, but caution, and a good amount of it, when it comes to ALL breeders, even those deeply involved in a club and recommended by their peers. 

I will add that caution is very necessary when looking to rescue as well.

Bottom line is that LOTS of groundwork needs to be done before you get a dog or pup. There are no quick guidelines that can be followed.

THAT is education that is truthfull.

I still have the 2007 stud book which shows the father/daughter pairing from the breeder I was 'most recommended' to get a pup from and mentor with to get my start in the 'show' dog world. She is considered exemplary and has 30 plus years in the breed. If I was less experienced I would have taken the 'in crowds' word for it.

SOB


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

agility collie mom said:


> As a rough collie lover and Mom this saddens me. Now that a double merle has won best of breed all the byb and puppy mills will start to breed for this color because there will be a demand. We recently had a litter of double merle rescue puppies come in to the clinic I work at. Mom was a stray, pregnant, unknown to her rescuer she was to whelp dm puppies. They all had neuro problems of the five one died shortly after birth, two are blind, one is deaf and blind.


 What happens at "puppy mills" doesn't have much to do with who wins BOB at Westminster. As has been pointed out, the dog that won is not a double merle and I doubt most average people would have any clue that his sire is. While there obviously are people involved in showing Collies, Shelties and Aussies that feel merle x merle breedings are sometimes worthwhile, I bet there are far more merle x merle breedings are being done by people breeding for the pet market. I've seen plenty of double merle Aussie puppies for sale at the local flea market. Those people didn't do these breedings because they are influenced by what show people are doing. They did them because merle is what sells to pet owners and there's every good chance they had no clue about any health issues associated with it (and I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even notice the oddly shaped pupils or that the pups couldn't see and/or hear).


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

agility collie mom said:


> As a rough collie lover and Mom this saddens me. Now that a double merle has won best of breed all the byb and puppy mills will start to breed for this color because there will be a demand. We recently had a litter of double merle rescue puppies come in to the clinic I work at. Mom was a stray, pregnant, unknown to her rescuer she was to whelp dm puppies. They all had neuro problems of the five one died shortly after birth, two are blind, one is deaf and blind.


A double merle did not win best of breed. It would be unusual for all the puppies in the litter to be MM (not impossible - just unlikely) If you breed a merle to a merle, the statistics are 50% will be normal merle (Mm) 25% will be solid (mm) and 25% will be homozyous merle (MM). Of course, the roll of the dice is on each puppy and you could get more than 25% MM or even none. In fact, some of the homozygous merles manage to dodge the bullet on serious deficiencies. I'm not promoting the practice, just trying to address the misinformation in the quoted ost.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Bordermom said:


> As for selling them, I'm not saying that's bad, but it appears to me that she's breeding a lot of litters per year (5-7), often without any pups spoken for at birth and then constantly selling off adult dogs. Not one dog a year or at a time, but usually a dozen or so dogs of different ages. She'll say she's cutting back on dogs because she doesn't have time, then breed two litters and keep five puppies to grow them out, purchase a dog and then the dog is up for sale a few months later.....


The thing is, until the recent AR mandated "good breeders have no more than a litter a year" 5-7 litters for a breeder who is trying to establish (or maintain) a line was not that unusual. Also, when trying to get a certain type/quality, there are dogs who will "wash out" of the breeding program, and it's in that dog's best interest to go to a loving pet home. (would you rather they just kill them, or keep them in a kennel, since they have other dogs they will be working with and promoting more?) The fact is the "one litter a year" mentality is wreaking havoc on gene pools and genetic diversity to a greater extent than closed registries.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> Ok I just want to say I do not think anyone here is agreeing with this breeder that this was a good breeding, in fact lots have said stuff to the contruary of that. What people are saying is to put the blame where it belongs, a concept many fail to grasp. And that is really the bottem line. This breeder made a poor decision to breed two generations of merle to merle, blame them not WKC.


Where is the second generation of merle to merle?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Pawzk9 said:


> The thing is, until the recent AR mandated "good breeders have no more than a litter a year" 5-7 litters for a breeder who is trying to establish (or maintain) a line was not that unusual. Also, when trying to get a certain type/quality, there are dogs who will "wash out" of the breeding program, and it's in that dog's best interest to go to a loving pet home. (would you rather they just kill them, or keep them in a kennel, since they have other dogs they will be working with and promoting more?) The fact is the "one litter a year" mentality is wreaking havoc on gene pools and genetic diversity to a greater extent than closed registries.


I have no problem with several litters a year if the bitches are given a decent break in between and are more than two years old. If you can handle the stress of having litters that often (and it is HUGE stress) then go for it to establish your line.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> I have no problem with several litters a year if the bitches are given a decent break in between and are more than two years old. If you can handle the stress of having litters that often (and it is HUGE stress) then go for it to establish your line.


 FWIW reproductuion vets seem to think that breeding early and often is the most ideal health wise. Probably one the most widely known and respected canine reproduction vet in the world is in my general area and he suggests back to back breedings until you have gotten the number of litters you wanted out of that girl then spaying. 

Now I don't see myself ever having so many litters or being in a position to even do back to back litters but there is no reason that people should look at back to back breedings as a problem. The experts in the field say that is much healthier than skipping seasons.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

I know of breeders that will do back to back and skip the next heat, I think if you do more than three it gets hard on the bitch. However I do NOT believe in breeding a bitch before two when health clearances can be completed.


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Where is the second generation of merle to merle?


The mother of the dog that won at westminster is also merle, so they bred a double merle to a merle. The parents of the double merle were merles. So the dog that won was the second generation of breeding two merles together.

I will have to go back to there website but I am pretty sure that is what I saw.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> The mother of the dog that won at westminster is also merle, so they bred a double merle to a merle. The parents of the double merle were merles. So the dog that won was the second generation of breeding two merles together.
> 
> I will have to go back to there website but I am pretty sure that is what I saw.


The dog's dam is a tricolor. http://www.collieexpressions.com/200906morris01.jpg


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> The dog's dam is a tricolor. http://www.collieexpressions.com/200906morris01.jpg


<historynerd> Those are _not_ Egyptian hieroglyphs those are zodiac symbols; I am disappointed in whoever designed that ad.</historynerd>

=P


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Bordermom said:


> It's not the show's fault, I don't think they can turn away entries based on ethics. If they could a lot more dogs would likely be excluded! I can think of some kennels that produce masses of dogs, yes they show them, but still, not ethical IMO.
> 
> It's the akc and the breeders, the akc for not seeing past the dollar signs and wanting money from puppy mills etc. that breed registered dogs, and the breeders. There's a lot of breeders who will agree to what testing should be done to better the breed, but would scream 'unfair' at the thought of those being manditory and not their option to do.
> 
> In some kennel clubs, like the KC in England, a merle/merle breeding would not be registered. Other kennel clubs go further with temperament testing and such, you can't breed unless your dog passes. AKC just wants one clearance, the payment for the papers.


i think that it is, the purpose of dog conformation shows is to evaluate breeding stock, so no IMHO its not ethical.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> The mother of the dog that won at westminster is also merle, so they bred a double merle to a merle. The parents of the double merle were merles. So the dog that won was the second generation of breeding two merles together.
> 
> I will have to go back to there website but I am pretty sure that is what I saw.


Wrong. The dam of the dog who won at Westminster is a black tri. Not condoning the practice, but the reason for using a homozygous merle is that if you breed to a solid colored dog, you can get all merles (if that's important, for some reason) It would make no sense to breed two homozygous merles together, as I don't know anyone who is looking to intentionally breed mismarks. What is possibly most amazing about this whole thing is the misinformation and conclusions that people are jumping to. Much of what has been posted on this thread is just flat misinformation. And not even misinformation from the anti-AKC article. People seem to be making it up as they go, and not even checking facts, when the dogs in question are readily pictured in a number of places.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> i think that it is, the purpose of dog conformation shows is to evaluate breeding stock, so no IMHO its not ethical.


The judge is not supposed to have information on the dog's background or lineage (of course, sometimes they do). They are supposed to be judging the dogs who are in front of them, on that day.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> The judge is not supposed to have information on the dog's background or lineage (of course, sometimes they do). They are supposed to be judging the dogs who are in front of them, on that day.


Then what's the purpose of all those ads in show magazines? People spend big money placing those. Are they ONLY to market a dog's puppies/stud service/handler to other breeders? Even if so, I highly doubt that most judges (especially breeder-judges) never see those ads or recognize the dogs.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Pai said:


> Then what's the purpose of all those ads in show magazines? People spend big money placing those. Are they ONLY to market a dog's puppies/stud service/handler to other breeders? Even if so, I highly doubt that most judges (especially breeder-judges) never see those ads or recognize the dogs.


As I said, of course sometimes the judges know who the dogs are. A lot of the conformation ring is about politics. That doesn't necessarily mean the judge has researched the dogs in the pedigree. They are there to judge the dog in front of them. Of course, handlers and owners do sometimes try to buy influence. But it really isn't the judge's responsibility to know the pedigree of every dog placed before them.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Pawzk9 said:


> The judge is not supposed to have information on the dog's background or lineage (of course, sometimes they do). They are supposed to be judging the dogs who are in front of them, on that day.


 
This, the dogs wear a NUMBER, there is no mention in the ring of the dogs name, so in theory the judge is ONLY looking at the dog in front of them and SHOULD NOT know the dogs name, who it's parents are or who the breeder is. They are only evaluting the dog for POSSIBLE breeding purposes, not it's bloodline.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Well then what is being rewarded is a "the ends justify the means" mentality. Essentially it doesn't matter what the breeders did to get the dog who is there in front of the judge. If that's the system that the pure bred dog fancy wants, then fine, they can set up any system they like -- but it DOES reward shady practices if no one cares about anything but the dog in the ring. And honestly I think anyone who doesn't see how bad that can look to people outside the dog fancy is really fooling themselves.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

Pai said:


> Then what's the purpose of all those ads in show magazines? People spend big money placing those. Are they ONLY to market a dog's puppies/stud service/handler to other breeders? Even if so, I highly doubt that most judges (especially breeder-judges) never see those ads or recognize the dogs.


 Those ads often don't even mentioned the sire/dam and I'm not sure I've ever seen one where the sire/dam were pictured in an all breed magazine or pedigrees were given. Of course judges will recognize the top dogs as who they are. Even without the magazines, judges are people who are involved with shows. They still are only supposed to be looking at the dogs in front of them, not making choices on what they feel is "good for the breed" or what they do or don't like about the dog's pedigree/owner/breeder/handler/etc. Not saying that never happens, it certainly does but it isn't_ supposed_ to.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

sassafras said:


> Well then what is being rewarded is a "the ends justify the means" mentality. Essentially it doesn't matter what the breeders did to get the dog who is there in front of the judge. If that's the system that the pure bred dog fancy wants, then fine, they can set up any system they like -- but it DOES reward shady practices if no one cares about anything but the dog in the ring. And honestly I think anyone who doesn't see how bad that can look to people outside the dog fancy is really fooling themselves.


 This thing is, you can't force ethics on people. You can set up whatever system you'd like and people will still do what they want to do. The German system for GSDs is set up so that all breeding is fairly regulated. Dogs must have hip clearances, a conformation rating and a working title before their offspring can be registered. They don't allow close linebreeding and at the conformation shows the judges are given a copy of each entrants pedigrees, the dogs are given a written critique and character testing is done. Yet there is still a big split between working and show under that system and still a lot of questionable ethics and practices. Not only that but there's question ethics and practices in just about anything you can possibly imagine, in every possible area of interest someone can have. It's not just limited to dog breeding and showing.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Alerondogs said:


> This thing is, you can't force ethics on people. You can set up whatever system you'd like and people will still do what they want to do. The German system for GSDs is set up so that all breeding is fairly regulated. Dogs must have hip clearances, a conformation rating and a working title before their offspring can be registered. They don't allow close linebreeding and at the conformation shows the judges are given a copy of each entrants pedigrees, the dogs are given a written critique and character testing is done. Yet there is still a big split between working and show under that system and still a lot of questionable ethics and practices. Not only that but there's question ethics and practices in just about anything you can possibly imagine, in every possible area of interest someone can have. It's not just limited to dog breeding and showing.


Yup, that's true. And at some point the dog fancy needs to decide if the system as it is should be changed. I definitely think that hand-waving away criticism or passing the buck a la "well it's individual breeders!" does more harm than good in the eyes of the general public. If the dog fancy doesn't care what the public thinks, then it's all good and carry on. But if it does (and judging by the defensiveness to any thread that is remotely critical than I think at least some members of it do) then I think it's the responsibility of SOMEONE to step up and call out breeders with shady practices. 

I personally find intentional merle to merle breeding unconscionable anyway, but if I were a collie breeder you can be sure my wheel would be awfully squeaky over this specific incident. But instead, apparently his breeder is getting accolades and interviews and his MM stud is about to become very popular. If you're going to rely on breeders and breed clubs policing themselves, then they need to police themselves (or admit that they actually don't find merle to merle breedings unethical).


----------



## Sasha1/2 (Dec 22, 2011)

Bordermom said:


> It's not the show's fault, I don't think they can turn away entries based on ethics. ...
> In some kennel clubs, like the KC in England, a merle/merle breeding would not be registered.


The issue is with the association allowing the MM dog to be registered and in not taking membership away from the kennel who deliberately produced him. You are right, the show probably couldn't turn this entry away, but the association could have done something long before the entry was ever made.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> Well then what is being rewarded is a "the ends justify the means" mentality. Essentially it doesn't matter what the breeders did to get the dog who is there in front of the judge. If that's the system that the pure bred dog fancy wants, then fine, they can set up any system they like -- but it DOES reward shady practices if no one cares about anything but the dog in the ring. And honestly I think anyone who doesn't see how bad that can look to people outside the dog fancy is really fooling themselves.


I don't know that I would call this "shady practices." Certainly it is a controversial practice, that many people disagree with (with reason). But I don't see the breeders trying to hide anything here. I also think that some people put too much emphasis on breed ring wins. Because they aren't about health clearances, or working ability, or bloodlines. They are about the dog there - and what he does on that particular day. There are a lot more things than conformation wins to look at when considering breeding stock. I know in my breed, many of the "golden crosses" were merle to merle. (Though I only can think of one MM -uneffected in vision or hearing - who was influential - she's behind my girls, numerous Working Trial Champions and Hall of Famers. The only female to ever win Supreme Working Trial Champion (I believe there have only been 4 in the history of the breed) was from a merle to merle cross. I'm not sure the breed would be the better for not having these dogs.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Alerondogs said:


> This thing is, you can't force ethics on people. You can set up whatever system you'd like and people will still do what they want to do. The German system for GSDs is set up so that all breeding is fairly regulated. Dogs must have hip clearances, a conformation rating and a working title before their offspring can be registered. They don't allow close linebreeding and at the conformation shows the judges are given a copy of each entrants pedigrees, the dogs are given a written critique and character testing is done. Yet there is still a big split between working and show under that system and still a lot of questionable ethics and practices. Not only that but there's question ethics and practices in just about anything you can possibly imagine, in every possible area of interest someone can have. It's not just limited to dog breeding and showing.


Do the Germans still have the breed warden system for GSDs? I know it used to be, when the pups reached a certain age, a warden would come evaluate the puppies, remove any substandard or faulty pups, or any pups above the number of 6. Then take those puppies to be culled *not as in neutered and placed


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> But I don't see the breeders trying to hide anything here.


After a couple of BorderWars' previous posts on double merle Collies, the breeders he talked about deleted the dogs' pages from their sites. Which seems to me like they were trying to hide something. And there are plenty of other Collie people in the club who think MxM breeding is inexcusable (and the UK Collie club has had MxM breeding banned for years now because of the health effects of it), so it's not like it's just non-show savvy people who have an issue with it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Funny. I had not trouble finding Avalanche's page. Right where it was before.



Pai said:


> After a couple of BorderWars' previous posts on double merle Collies, the breeders he talked about deleted the dogs' pages from their sites. Which seems to me like they were trying to hide something. And there are plenty of other Collie people in the club who think MxM breeding is inexcusable (and the UK Collie club has had MxM breeding banned for years now because of the health effects of it), so it's not like it's just non-show savvy people who have an issue with it.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Funny. I had not trouble finding Avalanche's page. Right where it was before.


Avalanche is not the only dog he's talked about.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Pai said:


> Avalanche is not the only dog he's talked about.


So which dogs can't you find info on anymore. There is plenty on Cherokee that I can still find. If they did temporarily disable a link, I suspect it is more because they are tired of being bombarded by people who are fueled by the article than that they are trying to hide anything.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2011/06/double-merle-breeders-dont-want-you-to-see-this.html

Though to be frank, whether some of these people are ashamed enough to remove pages or not, doesn't change the fact that breeding MxM on purpose is irresponsible. I don't doubt that because they get so much prestige and celebration from their club and judges for their dogs, many probably aren't really that upset about it. If you're taught from the start that it's okay to create some blind/deaf/dead puppies as long as you 'think about it really hard beforehand', I'm sure many will believe that to be true. A lot of breed communities live in that sort of bubble of subjective truth that looks totally insane from the outside, and this is one of those situations. 

So far almost everyone I've seen who defends MxM breeding has some kind of emotional or personal investment with the practice somewhere, which I find rather interesting. I guess in the end it boils down to whether someone feels it's ok to produce deaf/blind/dead puppies as long as the parents are pretty. Because the argument that non-merle dogs that don't suck are SO RARE that people are forced to do MxM is total bullpucky, sorry.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Pai said:


> Though to be frank, whether some of these people are ashamed enough to remove pages or not, doesn't change the fact that breeding MxM on purpose is irresponsible. I don't doubt that because they get so much prestige and celebration from their club and judges for their dogs, many probably aren't really that upset about it. If you're taught from the start that it's okay to create some blind/deaf/dead puppies as long as you 'think about it really hard beforehand', I'm sure many will believe that to be true. A lot of breed communities live in that sort of bubble of subjective truth that looks totally insane from the outside, and this is one of those situations.
> 
> So far almost everyone I've seen who defends MxM breeding has some kind of emotional or personal investment with the practice somewhere, which I find rather interesting. I guess in the end it boils down to whether someone feels it's ok to produce deaf/blind/dead puppies as long as the parents are pretty. Because the argument that non-merle dogs that don't suck are SO RARE that people are forced to do MxM is total bullpucky, sorry.


I find this odd coming from someone with a breed where a genetic abnormality (which is also related to tooth loss at an early age) is highly prized. I guess it is different strokes for different folks. And maybe we tend to look at other people's problems without looking that closely in our own back yard. I suppose I have a person investment in that many of the good dogs I've owned through the years have ancestors who were a result of merle to merle breeding (and the current girls have a great great grandparent who WAS a MM (though, coming from a non-flashy line, has only a little more than acceptable white and no hearing or vision deficiencies). I'm not sure that it is irresponsible breeding, but do think it is something that needs to be carefully weighed, and done by people who recognize the risks involved. And won't put affected puppies out with people who aren't equipped to deal with those deficiencies. I don't actually know anyone in Aussies who keeps a MM dog for the purpose of producing merles (but color is just not that big a deal in Aussies, and there's no shortage of merles). I expect that merle to merle crosses will become less common due to public pressure and AR. I'm not sure that's totally in the best interest of the breed.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> I expect that merle to merle crosses will become less common due to public pressure and AR. I'm not sure that's totally in the best interest of the breed.


Maybe not in the best interests of the breed. I have trouble believing that though.

What trumps? Best interest of the breed or best interest of the pups produced within the breed? I know my answer. I've answered it already for a breed that I think should be outcrossed. Lose/widen/progress to a different type . . . yes. I'd take that over producing too high a percentage with difficulties anyday.

SOB


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> I don't know that I would call this "shady practices."


I would. And I'm sure there are other people doing things as bad or worse, but if the only thing that matters is the dog in front of the judge in the ring, who would know or care?

Again, if that's the system that people are happy with, then go nuts. But then you have to understand that the credibility of the AKC may suffer in the general public's eyes. I think it's confusing to the uneducated to see articles like the one about intentional double merle breedings apparently being celebrated on one hand and AKC giving recommendations on picking a "good" breeder on the other hand. Given the former, why should the latter have any credibility? No wonder people go to BYBs.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> I find this odd coming from someone with a breed where a genetic abnormality (which is also related to tooth loss at an early age) is highly prized. I guess it is different strokes for different folks.


Touche. But personally I feel that a mutation that results in some missing teeth and a sweater requirement in cold weather has a magnitude less of an impact on a dog's quality of life than being born without eyes and/or the ability to hear. 

Most breeds have mutations that are not 'normal' (if we want to use nature's concept of 'normal' which is the wolf or dingo). I am not automatically against breeds with weird genes, since I am not one to judge what's 'unnatural' in dogs by a long shot. What I _do_ have an issue with is mutations that literally cripple the dog who has them, and that are completely preventable. Like MxM.

There is merle in Xolos, as a matter of fact. I find that very disturbing, since on a hairless dog it's invisible. The risk of accidental MxM is something more Xolo breeders should take seriously, therefore I will always speak up against efforts to minimize the negative effects of MxM.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Maybe not in the best interests of the breed. I have trouble believing that though.
> 
> What trumps? Best interest of the breed or best interest of the pups produced within the breed? I know my answer. I've answered it already for a breed that I think should be outcrossed. Lose/widen/progress to a different type . . . yes. I'd take that over producing too high a percentage with difficulties anyday.
> 
> SOB


What trumps depends on goals. One reason I decided I wasn't great breeder material is that I'm not good at hard decisions, and more likely to see this generation than future generations. Also, I found I had no real interest in breeding/keeping enough dogs to establish a recognizable line and type. But I can understand the people whose eye is on future generations, and who sometimes make difficult choices (including scrapping an entire breeding program if certain problems show up - I've known people who have put years of breeding behind them when epilepsy crops up). The thing is about merle - it's predictable. You know what you are getting and passing on. And if a MM is used only with mm there are no MM problems you risk passing to future generations.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Pai said:


> Touche. But personally I feel that a mutation that results in some missing teeth and a sweater requirement in cold weather has a magnitude less of an impact on a dog's quality of life than being born without eyes and/or the ability to hear.
> 
> Most breeds have mutations that are not 'normal' (if we want to use nature's concept of 'normal' which is the wolf or dingo). I am not automatically against breeds with weird genes, since I am not one to judge what's 'unnatural' in dogs by a long shot. What I _do_ have an issue with is mutations that literally cripple the dog who has them, and that are completely preventable. Like MxM.


Difference being, MMs are not generally "prized" and in fact are disqualified in Shelties, Collies and Aussies. I would not wish to have a dog who was going to go through life toothless from a genetic cause. Also not wild about dogs with zits. Diff'rnt strokes,.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> I find this odd coming from someone with a breed where a genetic abnormality (which is also related to tooth loss at an early age) is highly prized. I guess it is different strokes for different folks. And maybe we tend to look at other people's problems without looking that closely in our own back yard. I suppose I have a person investment in that many of the good dogs I've owned through the years have ancestors who were a result of merle to merle breeding (and the current girls have a great great grandparent who WAS a MM (though, coming from a non-flashy line, has only a little more than acceptable white and no hearing or vision deficiencies). I'm not sure that it is irresponsible breeding, but do think it is something that needs to be carefully weighed, and done by people who recognize the risks involved. And won't put affected puppies out with people who aren't equipped to deal with those deficiencies. I don't actually know anyone in Aussies who keeps a MM dog for the purpose of producing merles (but color is just not that big a deal in Aussies, and there's no shortage of merles). I expect that merle to merle crosses will become less common due to public pressure and AR. I'm not sure that's totally in the best interest of the breed.



Still, unfortunately, it is really the dog that has to deal with the deficiencies, not the breeder who thought really, really hard about it and decided to risk it. 

Clearly these sorts of breeders aren't breeding for health, they are breeding to win a pretty blue ribbon.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Difference being, MMs are not generally "prized" and in fact are disqualified in Shelties, Collies and Aussies. I would not wish to have a dog who was going to go through life toothless from a genetic cause. Also not wild about dogs with zits. Diff'rnt strokes,.


If they invented a cream that could reverse blindness and deafness the way they have one that cures acne, I'd feel the same way about MxM. =P


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

sassafras said:


> I would. And I'm sure there are other people doing things as bad or worse, but if the only thing that matters is the dog in front of the judge in the ring, who would know or care?
> 
> Again, if that's the system that people are happy with, then go nuts. But then you have to understand that the credibility of the AKC may suffer in the general public's eyes. I think it's confusing to the uneducated to see articles like the one about intentional double merle breedings apparently being celebrated on one hand and AKC giving recommendations on picking a "good" breeder on the other hand. Given the former, why should the latter have any credibility? No wonder people go to BYBs.


I agree. And, to take it further, if breeders don't like how AR groups are broadcasting the message about breeders, perhaps they should police themselves a bit and stop giving the AR groups so much fodder.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Pai said:


> Touche. But personally I feel that a mutation that results in some missing teeth and a sweater requirement in cold weather has a magnitude less of an impact on a dog's quality of life than being born without eyes and/or the ability to hear.
> 
> Most breeds have mutations that are not 'normal' (if we want to use nature's concept of 'normal' which is the wolf or dingo). I am not automatically against breeds with weird genes, since I am not one to judge what's 'unnatural' in dogs by a long shot. What I _do_ have an issue with is mutations that literally cripple the dog who has them, and that are completely preventable. Like MxM.
> 
> There is merle in Xolos, as a matter of fact. I find that very disturbing, since on a hairless dog it's invisible. The risk of accidental MxM is something more Xolo breeders should take seriously, therefore I will always speak up against efforts to minimize the negative effects of MxM.


I'm amazed that merle would be invisible in Xolos, since the pigment is on the skin. If you shave one of my dogs, they are spotted on their skin as well as their hair. It's actually harder to see merle in some of the really hairy breeds - like some Pyr Shepherds.



Pai said:


> If they invented a cream that could reverse blindness and deafness the way they have one that cures acne, I'd feel the same way about MxM. =P


How about a cream so the dog doesn't have to gum its food?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

brandiw said:


> Still, unfortunately, it is really the dog that has to deal with the deficiencies, not the breeder who thought really, really hard about it and decided to risk it.
> 
> .


So, would the dog have to deal less with its deficiency if neutered and place? I guess it would have less to deal with if it was killed. I actually know a sheltie with very similar markings (except he's sable merle) He does have reduced hearing (not totally deaf according to BAER) but no vision defects. This dog has a GREAT quality of life. He's done some agility (not as much as her dogs with normal hearing) has his RAE and is working on Utility. He's a happy, cheeky little dog.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> I'm amazed that merle would be invisible in Xolos, since the pigment is on the skin. If you shave one of my dogs, they are spotted on their skin as well as their hair. It's actually harder to see merle in some of the really hairy breeds - like some Pyr Shepherds.


The only merles I've seen in Xolos have been coated. In the merle litters I've seen photos of, only the coated pups can be seen with the pattern. I guess it could just be random chance that the people breeding merle coated are not getting any hairless merles, but I've never seen a hairless that had merle skin. In general the color is not common in the breed, so it could be just random chance that I haven't seen one. The breed is allowed in 'any color' so there would be no reason for someone to hide them.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

brandiw said:


> Still, unfortunately, it is really the dog that has to deal with the deficiencies, not the breeder who thought really, really hard about it and decided to risk it.
> 
> Clearly these sorts of breeders aren't breeding for health, they are breeding to win a pretty blue ribbon.


The breeder who used the MM behind my girls doesn't show conformation (strictly working lines) and one of the reasons I'm interested in her lines is that they are generally very healthy and have great longevity (frequently healthy well into their teens and often making 16 or 17)


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> What trumps depends on goals. One reason I decided I wasn't great breeder material is that I'm not good at hard decisions, and more likely to see this generation than future generations. Also, I found I had no real interest in breeding/keeping enough dogs to establish a recognizable line and type. But I can understand the people whose eye is on future generations, and who sometimes make difficult choices (including scrapping an entire breeding program if certain problems show up - I've known people who have put years of breeding behind them when epilepsy crops up). The thing is about merle - it's predictable. You know what you are getting and passing on. And if a MM is used only with mm there are no MM problems you risk passing to future generations.


Obviously a 'recognizable' line and type is more important to some than to others. Personally, I don't believe it is important enough to produce blind/deaf dogs for. I totally agree with Sassafras in her comment from above on this matter.

_"Again, if that's the system that people are happy with, then go nuts. But then you have to understand that the credibility of the AKC may suffer in the general public's eyes. I think it's confusing to the uneducated to see articles like the one about intentional double merle breedings apparently being celebrated on one hand and AKC giving recommendations on picking a "good" breeder on the other hand. Given the former, why should the latter have any credibility? No wonder people go to BYBs." _​ 
In regards to knowing what you get with the product of MM dogs, what about colobomas? When you can't eye test a dog that is blind or almost blind then you don't know what MM might be hiding do you?

_"Another worry came up after we had done the breeding… I now was hearing that Avalanche threw terrible eye checks. Of my four pups – 2 were fine, but 2 had small colobomas. I’m not used to having colobomas but they were small and the puppies were easy to place in pet homes."_​
http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2011/07/double-merle-breeders-in-their-own-words-1.html

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Pai said:


> The only merles I've seen in Xolos have been coated. In the merle litters I've seen photos of, only the coated pups can be seen with the pattern. I guess it could just be random chance that the people breeding merle coated are not getting any hairless merles, but I've never seen a hairless that had merle skin. In general the color is not common in the breed, so it could be just random chance that I haven't seen one. The breed is allowed in 'any color' so there would be no reason for someone to hide them.


What color are the merle dogs? I've seen some yellow/golden Xolos. ee hides M


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> What color are the merle dogs? I've seen some yellow/golden Xolos. ee hides M


The ones I have seen have been blue merles. But cryptic merles are another can of worms, just on their own.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> What about colobomas? When you can't eye test a dog that is blind or almost blind then you don't know what MM might be hiding do you?
> 
> _"Another worry came up after we had done the breeding… I now was hearing that Avalanche threw terrible eye checks. Of my four pups – 2 were fine, but 2 had small colobomas. I’m not used to having colobomas but they were small and the puppies were easy to place in pet homes."_​
> http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2011/07/double-merle-breeders-in-their-own-words-1.html
> ...


Eye problems (not caused by MM) aren't that uncommon in Collies. Like I said, it's problematic that the dog himself couldn't be tested (though coloboma would be obvious, and apparently it is known to be in his line) Small colobomas do not effect vision that greatly, and I'm sure the dogs she petted out see quite well. The ones without colobomas, I hope would be bred carefully to lines that don't produce them.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> So, would the dog have to deal less with its deficiency if neutered and place? I guess it would have less to deal with if it was killed. I actually know a sheltie with very similar markings (except he's sable merle) He does have reduced hearing (not totally deaf according to BAER) but no vision defects. This dog has a GREAT quality of life. He's done some agility (not as much as her dogs with normal hearing) has his RAE and is working on Utility. He's a happy, cheeky little dog.


Nope, I don't think it should be killed. I think it shouldn't have been bred in the first place. Especially since it is very well known that those litters will likely produce vision/hearing defects. To me, to knowingly breed a dog with genetic defects is indefensible.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> What trumps depends on goals. One reason I decided I wasn't great breeder material is that I'm not good at hard decisions, and more likely to see this generation than future generations.


If your goal is to not intentionally breed puppies with a significant risk of crippling birth defects, then making the decision not to breed merle to merle is not difficult. 

Seriously, I find the whole idea that intentionally choosing a breeding that could affect some individual puppies so profoundly negatively for some hypothetical future generation is just unconscionable. Those puppies are living creatures who don't deserve to be sacrificed on the altar of "establishing a line" or whatever other BS someone wants to use to justify it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Pai said:


> The ones I have seen have been blue merles. But cryptic merles are another can of worms, just on their own.


Not now that you can DNA test.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Really, why should the casual observer buy the value of health testing or trying to minimize the occurrence of health problems at all as long as someone is willing to care for "affected" dogs whether you are talking blind/deaf double merles, HD, SM, hypothyroid, epilepsy, etc etc etc. ??


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> If your goal is to not intentionally breed puppies with a significant risk of crippling birth defects, then making the decision not to breed merle to merle is not difficult.
> 
> Seriously, I find the whole idea that intentionally choosing a breeding that could affect some individual puppies so profoundly negatively for some hypothetical future generation is just unconscionable. Those puppies are living creatures who don't deserve to be sacrificed on the altar of "establishing a line" or whatever other BS someone wants to use to justify it.


I don't think you actually read my post. I don't know anyone who breeds merle to merle to "establish a line". When I was talking about "hard choices" I was more referring to the breeders who would give up 20 years of an established bloodline when epilepsy or CHD started showing up in their line to KEEP from affecting current and future generations. There are many tough choices that breeders make, that I am not sure I could. Therefore I depend on bloodlines other people have established. Including some that bred merle to merle


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> I don't think you actually read my post. I don't know anyone who breeds merle to merle to "establish a line".


"Or whatever other BS someone wants to use to justify it." 

It's nice for you that you have your dogs and you can't change what people did in the past, but I can't think of a single acceptable reason to do it.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

sassafras said:


> It's nice for you that you have your dogs and you can't change what people did in the past, but I can't think of a single acceptable reason to do it.


 Are you a breeder?


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> Do the Germans still have the breed warden system for GSDs? I know it used to be, when the pups reached a certain age, a warden would come evaluate the puppies, remove any substandard or faulty pups, or any pups above the number of 6. Then take those puppies to be culled *not as in neutered and placed


 They have relaxed on that stuff a bit. It used to be that if a bitch had more than 6 puppies, the "extra" puppies were killed at just a few days old. There was a strong belief that the puppies would all be sub-par if the dam had to nurse more than 6. Now they don't allow bitches to raise more than 8 puppies but foster dams are available for any "extras":

"A bitch may rear not more than eight puppies from her own litter. Additional puppies are to be raised by means of a nurse (foster mother). The club maintains nurses for this arrangement in each Landesgruppe. If the bitch has more than 8 puppies, she may be bred again no earlier than 6 months after the whelping date." http://siriusdog.com/articles/sv-rules-german-shepehrd-kennel2.htm


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Alerondogs said:


> Are you a breeder?


Is the suggestion here then that only breeders could possibly understand the nuances. Cuz that is complete B.S.

Do you wonder how breeders alienate dog lovers with inferences like that?

As well Sassafrass might not be a breeder, but my Mom and both my Aunts bred Collies and my grandfather before them and I KNOW that they found the practise of putting merle to merle completely unacceptable and THAT was over 40 years ago. I worked with them to help pull struggling pups. through. There was no way that a pup would be created intentionally to struggle or have defect.

I know very well a Cocker breeder that just retired her dogs and she also bred merle in her program. She started breeding in the 50s, and she will tell you as well that merle to merle is completely unacceptable. She goes to great, great lengths to know which are her cryptic dogs and which are not for that reason.

SOB


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Alerondogs said:


> Are you a breeder?


Does it matter? I don't have to be a breeder to find the practice of intentionally rolling the dice on crippling birth defects for puppies abhorrent. Some lines simply should not be crossed.

By the way, I also have opinions about parenting although I don't have kids and government even though I'm not a politician.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Alerondogs said:


> Are you a breeder?


Are you a geneticist?


----------



## Avery (Nov 22, 2011)

Alerondogs said:


> Are you a breeder?



For questions like this, on various topics, my response is usually this:

I don't have to be a chef to know if the soup tastes like crap.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Is the suggestion here then that only breeders could possibly understand the nuances. Cuz that is complete B.S.


 Well it was just a question  It is interesting that on most forums, some of the people who have the strongest opinions about how breeders should be doing things have no experience or interest in breeding themselves. 

Everyone has an opinion about what everyone else should and shouldn't be doing. I know before I got involved in with breeding I had some really idealistic views about the subject. The fact is though, if breeders stopped doing all breedings that were controversial with someone, there wouldn't be any dogs left to breed. I have heard people seriously upset...sometimes appalled even that someone has back to back litters, breeds their dogs too young, breeds their dogs too old, uses frozen semen, breeds to foreign dogs, breeds without certain health tests, breeds carriers of a certain health issue, only breeds to dogs they know well, breeds a dog with a sibling or relative who has a health problem, breeds dogs with mutations, breeds an unnatural breed, breeds mixed breeds, breed purebreds, breeds a newly developed breed, does too much inbreeding, does too much outcrossing, breeds dogs who lack breed type, breeds to a popular stud, breeds to unknown studs, breeds dogs who have too much breed type, breeds a dog who is too anti-social, breeds a dog who is too friendly, breeds dogs who aren't naturally good jumpers, breeds a dog who is afraid of running on slick surfaces or storms, breeds a dog with an undescended testicle, doesn't remove a dog from the gene pool because they produced a problem of some sort, breeds dogs who have any relative any where with any less than desirable trait, breeds a dog who they personally don't like for some reason or another. The list goes on and on and on and on....

Like almost everything involved with breeding dogs, there are obviously gray areas with merle x merle breeding. Pawzk9 stated in her breed, some of the best/most influential breedings were merle x merle. Breeds like Catahoulas and Koolies are almost always merle x merle, as many dogs who appear non-merle are cryptic merles. Merle x merle is sometimes done in PyrSheps without the same issues that are seen in some breeds. 

I have opinions on what I consider to be good breedings...and bad ones. I have people I'd buy a puppy from and people I wouldn't...and some, where it would depend on how much I liked the breeding  I just don't think rules or laws should be made based on my opinions because they are after all, just opinions.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Alerondogs said:


> Well it was just a question  It is interesting that on most forums, some of the people who have the strongest opinions about how breeders should be doing things have no experience or interest in breeding themselves.


That would not include me as I have mentored with breeders before and raised and placed two litters and I have VERY strong opinions.

It is interesting that you suggest the strongest opinions are from those that do not breed. I find no truth in that. MANY breeders have VERY strong opinions. Join the Cangen or the Cangen-L list and have a read if you want to see some heated strong discussions, breeder to breeder - a recent one even on this very topic.



Alerondogs said:


> Everyone has an opinion about what everyone else should and shouldn't be doing. I know before I got involved in with breeding I had some really idealistic views about the subject. The fact is though, if breeders stopped doing all breedings that were controversial with someone, there wouldn't be any dogs left to breed.


That's a bit of a stretch isn't it? Lets change up the discussion from the point of deliberately breeding knowing there are incredibly high chances of deformity to - doing any breeding that might be controversial for a myriad of petty reasons. 



Alerondogs said:


> I have heard people seriously upset...sometimes appalled even that someone has back to back litters, breeds their dogs too young, breeds their dogs too old, uses frozen semen, breeds to foreign dogs, breeds without certain health tests, breeds carriers of a certain health issue, only breeds to dogs they know well, breeds a dog with a sibling or relative who has a health problem, breeds dogs with mutations, breeds an unnatural breed, breeds mixed breeds, breed purebreds, breeds a newly developed breed, does too much inbreeding, does too much outcrossing, breeds dogs who lack breed type, breeds to a popular stud, breeds to unknown studs, breeds dogs who have too much breed type, breeds a dog who is too anti-social, breeds a dog who is too friendly, breeds dogs who aren't naturally good jumpers, breeds a dog who is afraid of running on slick surfaces or storms, breeds a dog with an undescended testicle, doesn't remove a dog from the gene pool because they produced a problem of some sort, breeds dogs who have any relative any where with any less than desirable trait, breeds a dog who they personally don't like for some reason or another. The list goes on and on and on and on....


That is a long list. Pretty accurate too. Seen most of those complained about. See the comment above.



Alerondogs said:


> Like almost everything involved with breeding dogs, there are obviously gray areas with merle x merle breeding. Pawzk9 stated in her breed, some of the best/most influential breedings were merle x merle. Breeds like Catahoulas and Koolies are almost always merle x merle, as many dogs who appear non-merle are cryptic merles. Merle x merle is sometimes done in PyrSheps without the same issues that are seen in some breeds. .


The area here is not gray for a great number of people. High risk of deformity is not acceptable, period, for many and for good reason. IMHO IF you have a vision and a breeding program that demands that a high risk of deformity or suffering is bred for . . . get over yourself and change your vision. Get over the breed if that is what it entails.

In ALL DOG BREEDS there are occasionally double merle litters produced without problem . . . In some dog breeds where any amount of white spotting is discouraged there is more success with this as the dilution effect of MM amplifies up when it combines with white spotting. The breeders that produced THIS double merle male, however, are fully aware that in the COLLIE breed there is enough white favored that double merles have a much higher chance of problems that in breeds that favor full solid coloring. As I've seen MM Catahoulas that are blind I won't condone the choice in any breed.

Juniper, Catahoula double merle born w/ no anus - NEEDS HELP - (Sad story, don't click if you're sensitive) - http://handicappedpet.net/helppets/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=13347



Alerondogs said:


> I have opinions on what I consider to be good breedings...and bad ones. I have people I'd buy a puppy from and people I wouldn't...and some, where it would depend on how much I liked the breeding  I just don't think rules or laws should be made based on my opinions because they are after all, just opinions.


To a point. I am very libertarian in the way that I think HOWEVER there are concerns that are greater than personal liberty. If I believed there weren't I'd be an anarchist, and I'm not that.

On this, though, what is being wondered about is why the BREED CLUB did not have rules in place, as that is where, you know, purchasers are steered to find "reputable' breeders. Sassafras has already commented with clarity on how THIS type of controversy reflects on the club. You want to bring AR to your door? Do you want them writing the rule books and forcing the laws? . . . then show that you refuse to police your own. 

SOB


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> That would not include me as I have mentored with breeders before and raised and placed two litters and I have VERY strong opinions.


 No doubt breeders have strong opinions too. I said "on forums", meaning forums such as this. 



spanielorbust said:


> The area here is not gray for a great number of people. High risk of deformity is not acceptable, period, for many and for good reason. IMHO IF you have a vision and a breeding program that demands that a high risk of deformity or suffering is bred for . . . get over yourself and change your vision. Get over the breed if that is what it entails.


 TBH the merle issue doesn't really affect me, as the breed I am involved with breeding only come in black or brown. They are pretty naturally built and generally long lived. I have a dog of a breed that comes in merle and know respected breeders in that breed have done merle x merle breedings. He's from a merle to fawn breeding and is fawn FWIW.

Quite a few breeds are based on a mutation or "deformity". We have one rescue dog of such a breed as well - a Cardigan. Chinese Cresteds were already brought up. I was around a lot of them for years and deformities certainly _seem_ more common in them than the average dog. I have seen several that have some sort of issue where their front legs are dwarf-y looking and their rear legs are normal. Maybe I just happened to see a few and such things aren't common though. Also isn't there an ear deformity that's more common in the hairless ones? Not to pick on them though, every breed has it's problems but they all have dedicated breeders and owners who think they're worth preserving too.



spanielorbust said:


> As I've seen MM Catahoulas that are blind I won't condone the choice in any breed.


 Do you feel all breeders of Catahoulas are irresponsible?



spanielorbust said:


> On this, though, what is being wondered about is why the BREED CLUB did not have rules in place, as that is where, you know, purchasers are steered to find "reputable' breeders. Sassafras has already commented with clarity on how THIS type of controversy reflects on the club. You want to bring AR to your door? Do you want them writing the rule books and forcing the laws? . . . then show that you refuse to police your own.
> 
> SOB


 I'm not sure "AR will come to your door if you don't stop controversial breedings" is really a valid argument. In the eyes of AR, it's all controversial breeding. Or rather, all breeders are equally irresponsible and there is no such thing as a good breeder. They have been taking a divide and conquer approach with breeders for decades now. They are already writing laws, paying lobbyists and brainwashing the public.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

How do you think AR gets support? You can call it brainwashing, but if breeders keep doing things that normal, reasonable people would object to and then cry persecution when normal, reasonable people object, they certainly aren't going to get much support and will drive people to AR groups.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

Willowy said:


> How do you think AR gets support? You can call it brainwashing, but if breeders keep doing things that normal, reasonable people would object to and then cry persecution when normal, reasonable people object, they certainly aren't going to get much support and will drive people to AR groups.


 If someone is driven to support PETA because of they saw that a Collie breeder bred two merle dogs together, I'm not sure I would really consider them normal or reasonable.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Alerondogs said:


> If someone is driven to support PETA because of they saw that a Collie breeder bred two merle dogs together, I'm not sure I would really consider them normal or reasonable.


One occurrence, no. A general attitude of "we'll do whatever we want even if it harms dogs", yes.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Willowy said:


> How do you think AR gets support? You can call it brainwashing, but if breeders keep doing things that normal, reasonable people would object to and then cry persecution when normal, reasonable people object, they certainly aren't going to get much support and will drive people to AR groups.


You are being over dramatic. 

The distance between being put out over some breeding practices of a few and Peta is VAST........ 

If that sends someone running into the arms of peta, they were heading in that direction anyway.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

> In some dog breeds where any amount of white spotting is discouraged there is more success with this as the dilution effect of MM amplifies up when it combines with white spotting.


Hmm I find this to be curious. Is the way that MM effects the white spotting gene very well understood? I find it interesting because on the cryptic merle thread you started not long ago, I shared a story about a breeding that involved merle Dachshunds. The father of the litter was a blue merle and the mother was red with a black nose, neither had any white on them. One of the puppies was born nearly blind and totally deaf, and he was mostly white with patches of pale yellow. Considering that there are breeds that discourage white markings and breed merle to merle, and they "seem" to have a lower chance of having their vision and hearing effected by the MM gene, you'd think that this puppy would have also not been as effected by the MM gene since neither of the parents had any white, and neither did any of his siblings. But this pup had a very large amount of white, he looked piebald. Does this mean that MM puppies from breeds with few white markings are actually just as much at risk of developing problems as breeds with more white markings (they just so far have been very lucky not to develop any problems)?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Aren't Dachshunds dapple, not merle? Is it the same gene, different name?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> You are being over dramatic.
> 
> The distance between being put out over some breeding practices of a few and Peta is VAST........
> 
> If that sends someone running into the arms of peta, they were heading in that direction anyway.


 There are less extreme AR groups than PETA.

If some people can't see how things like this (and the "culling" thing. . .ick) turns public sentiment against breeders, I don't think *I* could explain it to them. But it does.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> Aren't Dachshunds dapple, not merle? Is it the same gene, different name?


Same gene, different name.



Nargle said:


> Hmm I find this to be curious. Is the way that MM effects the white spotting gene very well understood? )?


It is not. Lots is discussed. Most information is anecdotal but there are recognized patterns that seem to be commonly reported.




Nargle said:


> I find it interesting because on the cryptic merle thread you started not long ago, I shared a story about a breeding that involved merle Dachshunds. The father of the litter was a blue merle and the mother was red with a black nose, neither had any white on them. One of the puppies was born nearly blind and totally deaf, and he was mostly white with patches of pale yellow.


Hallmarks of a double merle pup.



Nargle said:


> Considering that there are breeds that discourage white markings and breed merle to merle, and they "seem" to have a lower chance of having their vision and hearing effected by the MM gene, you'd think that this puppy would have also not been as effected by the MM gene since neither of the parents had any white, and neither did any of his siblings.


This is about chances. The puppy you are speaking of probably had better odds than an MM pup from piebald parents, however chance did not work in his direction. When I say that MM is amplified up by white spotting . . . this is not set in stone. It is not fully predictable. This is what 'incomplete penetrance' is all about. Things that we do not understand, like a cold the dam has while pups are developing, can change the way that foetus' develop, including having an affect on color.




Nargle said:


> But this pup had a very large amount of white, he looked piebald. Does this mean that MM puppies from breeds with few white markings are actually just as much at risk of developing problems as breeds with more white markings (they just so far have been very lucky not to develop any problems)?


The large amount of white on double merles can be from just those two alleles. MM puppies from breeds with very little white can still have horrific problems because of the MM load. Breeders in the Dashchund and Catahoula breeds say the chances are lowered as they favor fully colored dogs . . . and there has been a couple of small sample size studies that I have seen that have included these breeds and it looks like this is true . . . so far. That far from means that there is safety in producing MM when the lines behind have no white spotting. Disasters still happen. If you click on the link about the Catahoula pup from the last page you will see what I mean.

SOB


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Willowy said:


> If some people can't see how things like this (and the "culling" thing. . .ick) turns public sentiment against breeders, I don't think *I* could explain it to them. But it does.


Yea it's not the PETA people you need to worry about, it's the otherwise moderate public. However anyone feels personally about merle x merle breedings, I'm astonished that the perception of the public isn't even on the radar as a concern. Besides, why should Joe or Jane Average believe the AKC when it advises only buying from breeders who health test so they don't _accidentally_ produce unhealthy puppies when there are breeders who are _deliberately_ taking a chance with producing unhealthy puppies and ultimately rewarded for it? Self-policing organizations only work when its members actually self-police.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Alerondogs said:


> Do you feel all breeders of Catahoulas are irresponsible?.


Catahoulas come in solid black, solid red, yellow, and brindle and as well merle. I don't categorize breeders as 'irresponsible' or 'not'. I will categorize their practices and if a breeder is breeding merle to merle I believe they are being morally unethical and I will not support that.



Alerondogs said:


> I'm not sure "AR will come to your door if you don't stop controversial breedings" is really a valid argument. .


That was not my argument though was it. My argument is that full breed clubs better be seen to be policing their own, as they are supposed to represent the better breeders. If those in the breed clubs will not be seen to be policing their own THEN AR will have more fuel for their fire.

Double merle breedings are not allowed in MANY, MANY breed clubs, and I am of the understanding that the KC in the UK will not register MM pups. We are not speaking about some 'odd' sensitive people that see this as being abhorent. 



Alerondogs said:


> In the eyes of AR, it's all controversial breeding. Or rather, all breeders are equally irresponsible and there is no such thing as a good breeder. They have been taking a divide and conquer approach with breeders for decades now. They are already writing laws, paying lobbyists and brainwashing the public.


Breeders were dissing each other long before AR had a foothold. Read "Toy Dogs and Their Ancestors", written in 1911, and that author even has a go at 'lesser' breeders. PETA was established well after my earliest memories of breeders trash talking each other and playing 'exclusion' games. However, it is really here nor there who gave them the model, AR has run with it. SINCE they have I believe pro-activity would be the smart way to go.

Willowy has this exactly right. _"If breeders keep doing things that normal, reasonable people would object to and then cry persecution when normal, reasonable people object, they certainly aren't going to get much support and will drive people to AR groups."_ 

If breeders cannot differentiate between what is acceptable practice by most of the societal norms of today, and what is not, and act accordingly then they have already lost.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Nargle said:


> Hmm I find this to be curious. Is the way that MM effects the white spotting gene very well understood? I find it interesting because on the cryptic merle thread you started not long ago, I shared a story about a breeding that involved merle Dachshunds. The father of the litter was a blue merle and the mother was red with a black nose, neither had any white on them. One of the puppies was born nearly blind and totally deaf, and he was mostly white with patches of pale yellow. Considering that there are breeds that discourage white markings and breed merle to merle, and they "seem" to have a lower chance of having their vision and hearing effected by the MM gene, you'd think that this puppy would have also not been as effected by the MM gene since neither of the parents had any white, and neither did any of his siblings. But this pup had a very large amount of white, he looked piebald. Does this mean that MM puppies from breeds with few white markings are actually just as much at risk of developing problems as breeds with more white markings (they just so far have been very lucky not to develop any problems)?


They may still have problems, but it is less likely than in breeds with a large amount of white trim. BTW in dachshunds it is called dapple. Same gene.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Willowy said:


> There are less extreme AR groups than PETA.
> 
> 
> 
> > Not all of them dress as carrots or parade nude celebrities around. But there is no such thing as a "moderate" AR group.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Juniper, Catahoula double merle born w/ no anus - NEEDS HELP - (Sad story, don't click if you're sensitive) - http://handicappedpet.net/helppets/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=13347
> 
> SOB


Sad story and a puppy with many strikes against it. Do you have any evidence (even anecdotal) that lack of an anus is an issue from MxM breeding? I've never heard of it.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> Sad story and a puppy with many strikes against it. Do you have any evidence (even anecdotal) that lack of an anus is an issue from MxM breeding? I've never heard of it.


Anecdotally I have always understood double merles can be born with severe deformities . . . not something pleasant to deal with. I grew up with that knowledge and as I don't like the merle pattern I've not investigated far into it, so I just looked it up to confirm defects in double merles are not limited to sight and hearing. 

_"Fetal death rate for MM dogs is reported by some to be as high as 50% and surviving pups generally do suffer from some form of sensory *and other anomalies*, with hearing and sight defects most common"_​
http://www.chromadane.com/GDColor006.htm

_"In all breeds, the double merle genotype can be sublethal and is associated with *multiple abnormalities of the skeletal, cardiac, and reproductive systems*"_​
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1360527/

Took me a bit, but here it is, reportedly from the lips of Wayne himself:

_“While the British Kennel Club, in addition to changing its breed standards, has banned the registration of puppies from closely related parents, the A.K.C. has refused to follow suit.* Wayne Pacelle, the Humane Society C.E.O., told me that if the A.K.C. and breed clubs won’t act, it’s inevitable that animal welfare groups will push for legal standards addressing inbreeding and the physical soundness and genetic health of dogs. *”Breeding certainly has a place in the world of dogs, but this mania about achieving what’s considered a ‘perfect’ or desirable outward appearance rather than focusing on the physical soundness of the animal is one of the biggest dog-welfare problems in this country,”� he said. “And the emotional and financial cost of these sick dogs to their owners is enormous.” (emphasis added)_​
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/magazine/can-the-bulldog-be-saved.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1

I dunno but I just think a proactive approach might better serve anyone who is interested in breeding in the future. 

SOB


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> I'm amazed that merle would be invisible in Xolos, since the pigment is on the skin.


I asked around on the Xolo FB group I'm on, and was shown this pic of a CH merle hairless Xolo, MEXCH Teotihuacan:










So in essence, they're the same as a cryptic, since that type of skin spotting is common in even non-merle hairless.



> How about a cream so the dog doesn't have to gum its food?


I just noticed you edited your post to add this comment. Both my dogs can chew just fine, actually. The only teeth that are affected in most dogs are the premolars. There are some breeders who use the gene as an excuse to not breed for good mouths, but that's a separate issue. I understand you're feeling defensive about the whole MxM but taking pot shots at breeds that you don't understand doesn't really help your case.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Pai said:


> I asked around on the Xolo FB group I'm on, and was shown this pic of a CH merle hairless Xolo, MEXCH Teotihuacan:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting. I guess tghe blue eyes would be the give-away. As to not "understanding" Cresteds, I've never owned one but have friends who were breeders. One of whom got the first AKC obedience title on one. So, I wouldn't consider myself unfamiliar with the breed.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

So then it's just a personal values judgement on your part that you consider having breeds with a few missing teeth and occasional zits the moral equivalent of purposely breeding dogs with a high risk of being born without eyes or the ability to hear? 

Glad we got that straight, then.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Pai said:


> So then it's just a personal values judgement on your part that you consider having breeds with a few missing teeth and occasional zits the moral equivalent of purposely breeding dogs with a high risk of being born without eyes or the ability to hear?
> 
> Glad we got that straight, then.


Cute spin! The risk of MM is approximately 25% which is unacceptably high for most breeders. It is not a trait selected for. Not every MM (in fact not most of them) is blind and deaf. Some are minimally affected or not affected at all. On the other hand, what is the penetrance of dentition problems in the hairless cresteds (which is a trait specifically selected for? I just think people should look at their own house before they go trying to clean other people's houses.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Willowy said:


> There are less extreme AR groups than PETA.
> 
> If some people can't see how things like this (and the "culling" thing. . .ick) turns public sentiment against breeders, I don't think *I* could explain it to them. But it does.


The "public" should seek facts, not headlines. In any field or endeaver.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Willowy said:
> 
> 
> > There are less extreme AR groups than PETA.
> ...


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

KBLover said:


> The "public" should seek facts, not headlines. In any field or endeaver.


Yes, and people shouldn't steal from or murder each other. I prefer to plan for what people actually DO, not what I think they SHOULD do.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

And, evidently we're being told that it's a FACT that some "good" breeders are doing things like deliberately breeding for genetic defects and killing healthy dogs/puppies, and we're supposed to think they're better than a puppymill for some reason. Not sure what reason, but I guess if they win ribbons nobody argues.

So what headlines are people ignoring facts for?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

sassafras said:


> Yes, and people shouldn't steal from or murder each other. I prefer to plan for what people actually DO, not what I think they SHOULD do.


And you can do that in this case...how?

Seriously, what can you do assuming it is 100% true that Westminster is rewarding cruelty? Those things you mention are direct threats/assault on your life and property that you can take direct actions to diminish the risks of occurring.

You can lock your doors and be vigilant and safe to lower the risks of those things you mention - what can you do to prepare for what people do in this case? How can you diminish the risk of Westminster naming a dog as Best in Breed/Group/Show that was bred in cruel/imprudent/unethical methods?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

KBLover said:


> And you can do that in this case...how?
> 
> Seriously, what can you do assuming it is 100% true that Westminster is rewarding cruelty? Those things you mention are direct threats/assault on your life and property that you can take direct actions to diminish the risks of occurring.
> 
> You can lock your doors and be vigilant and safe to lower the risks of those things you mention - what can you do to prepare for what people do in this case? How can you diminish the risk of Westminster naming a dog as Best in Breed/Group/Show that was bred in cruel/imprudent/unethical methods?


Apparently I misunderstood your initial post. I took it to mean that the general public was too much up in arms about this issue because they should not base their opinions on inflammatory articles but rather research the issue more thoroughly. I don't believe most people are going to take the time to do that, even though they should, and so it behooves _someone_ - if not the AKC, then breeders/breed clubs - to take into account the public's perception of them when making policies about things like allowing/disallowing registration of double merle dogs and their progeny. That simple act would diminish the risk of Westminster naming a winner that was bred by this specific practice.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

KBLover said:


> Seriously, what can you do assuming it is 100% true that Westminster is rewarding cruelty?


 The Westminster BOB in my breed is from generations of fully health tested dogs with multiple working and performance titles. He is also fully health tested and has a working title, more of which will undoubtedly come after he's done being campaigned. Given this, Westminster rewards fully health tested dogs from fully health tested and working titled backgrounds that are correct physically and temperamentally


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Alerondogs said:


> The Westminster BOB in my breed is from generations of fully health tested dogs with multiple working and performance titles. He is also fully health tested and has a working title, more of which will undoubtedly come after he's done being campaigned. Given this, Westminster rewards fully health tested dogs from fully health tested and working titled backgrounds that are correct physically and temperamentally


Wonderful to read. Truly. I am always grateful for those that are doing such an incredible job and the breed clubs that back them up.

Unfortunately it is the bad apples that will always garnish the most attention. This Westminster BOB Collie Winner is the epitome of all the things that many know are the weaknesses in the show system. He is closebred (each of his grandparents have the same sire, two have the same dam). He is from an untested dog bred for color.

In the end, for me, this goes back to being shown to be policing oneself and ones associates, and having systems in place to do so, before someone does it for you. 

Coat colour in dogs: identification of the Merle locus in the Australian shepherd breed -- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1431520/?tool=pubmed

Retrotransposon insertion in SILV is responsible for merle patterning of the domestic dog -- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1360527/?tool=pubmed

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Retrotransposon insertion in SILV is responsible for merle patterning of the domestic dog -- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1360527/?tool=pubmed
> 
> SOB


My goodness! A ton of misinformation in this abstract. The people can't even discern the difference between tan points and sable?


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

spanielorbust said:


> each of his grandparents have the same sire, two have the same dam


My jaw just hit the floor. IMO, this is the true abomination. The merle x merle breeding is unconscionable, to be sure, but purposely breeding dogs that are closely related to one another is inviting all kinds of trouble. With the merle x merle breeding, the risks are known (25% of puppies, on average, will be MM, and they are likely to be affected negatively). But with that level of inbreeding, the risks are no less real, it is just impossible to calculate them. Shame on the breeders for doing this, the breed club for allowing it, and AKC for promoting such things!


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> My jaw just hit the floor. IMO, this is the true abomination. The merle x merle breeding is unconscionable, to be sure, but purposely breeding dogs that are closely related to one another is inviting all kinds of trouble. With the merle x merle breeding, the risks are known (25% of puppies, on average, will be MM, and they are likely to be affected negatively). But with that level of inbreeding, the risks are no less real, it is just impossible to calculate them. Shame on the breeders for doing this, the breed club for allowing it, and AKC for promoting such things!


Really? My dogs are fine. Inbreeding doesn't create a genetic problem, but it can bring to light recessive problems. If there are no recessive problems and the line doesn't suffer inbreeding depression then you will continue to produce healthy dogs. Since dogs can only produce genetic defects for which they have the genes for.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Spicy1_VV said:


> . . . and the line doesn't suffer inbreeding depression then you will continue to produce healthy dogs. . .


How do you prevent inbreeding depression? What about the MHC? Your dogs might be fine, but can you fathom what might occur further generations up in a closed gene pool?

The Cavalier is a a prime example of breeders that claimed their 'dogs were fine', yet 10 generations down we find out they were not. Some breeders didn't see a problem in their lines for 25 years (many of those lines were closely bred) but left a legacy for others to clean up. Some keep saying that they didn't see anything in their lines, it was every one elses ------ yeah right. Just how DID the rate of mutated allele frequency climb so high then?

Episodic Falling (unique to Cavaliers), Dry Eye Curly Coat (unique to Cavaliers), CM ubiquitous in the breed, CM/SM as well with over 50% affected by 6 years of age, MVD with 99%+ affected by 10 - 50% by 5. The MHC in this breed has not even been studied to see how homozygous it is but as cancer and allergies, digestive, kidney and pancreas problems are all known to be problems it faces at a heightened rates I can speculate.

Or do you breed in a closed gene pool?

SOB


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

I don't believe you can prevent it. Some lines suffer from it, others don't. I believe reasons unknown? 

Some breeds overall seems to have more issues but others don't. 

I can't fathom it for certain but have a good idea they will continue to be fine. My dogs are not having major impact on the breed. 

Secondly anytime you have a closed gene pool all dogs will eventually become related, even without close inbreeding. Even if you start with a large number of dogs. Potentially a problem can arise as recessive defect remained hidden for numerous generations. This is far less likely with very tight inbreeding.

Not to make accusations but sometimes breeders lie or deny. They are not honest or don't share info, this is one thing that allows problems to become prolific in the breed. It's much easier to keep quite and with some problems bury puppies. 

In inbreeding you are likely to see the problem sooner rather than later. 

What do you mean do I breed in a closed gene pool? I understand the question but at the sametime?


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Spicy1_VV said:


> I don't believe you can prevent it. Some lines suffer from it, others don't. I believe reasons unknown?


9 of 10 started mouse strains die as the suffer from it to the point that they can't reproduce. The others have to be kept in special environments to protect them from elements. They all suffer from it . . . and the reasons that ARE known point to homozygosity on the MHC being a huge problem with regard to immunity.



Spicy1_VV said:


> Some breeds overall seems to have more issues but others don't.


Which ones don't? I've yet to find one.



Spicy1_VV said:


> I can't fathom it for certain but have a good idea they will continue to be fine. My dogs are not having major impact on the breed.


I am glad to know that you are not certain. Britannia of Ttiweh, in the Cavalier breed b. in 1956 (27%+ 8 gen COI) had two pups that both made it into the gene pool and neither really prolifically for a few generations. She has made a major impact, however, 40 years and forward on. Can't find a Cavalier without her back there. 

_Analysis of the pedigree database indicated that syringomyelia had a high incidence in certain families and lines. Four key dogs, C, D, M and S, consistently occurred within the individual pedigrees but were not always present in the same pedigree. These represented four major breeding lines. Table 1 illustrates when affected dogs descended from dogs C, D, M and S . . . The pedigrees of dogs C, D, M and S were then studied to identify any common ancestry. All of the affected dogs could be traced back to a single common ancestor, bitch G (figure 3)._

http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2007-0320-201201/sec7.pdf

_The modern CKCS breed has a smaller gene pool than 15 years ago and can be traced back predominantly to a relatively small group of dogs and their closely breed descendants. The earliest point that all 100 syringomyelia cases came together was a bitch, coded G that had only one litter of two offspring in 1959. These offspring formed part of relatively small selection of stud stock used by the major breeders of the 60's and 70's from which many of the modern champions have emerged. All syringomyelia cases could be traced back through to Bitch G, through significant ancestors C, D, M and S not only through both the dam and the sire, but at least 6/8 great grandparents._

http://web.archive.org/web/20080517...nd.com/health_topics/syringomyelia_heath.html​
http://www.cavaliers.co.uk/cgi-bin/breeding.pl?op=breeding&index=3316&gens=4&db=mybreed.dbw



Spicy1_VV said:


> Secondly anytime you have a closed gene pool all dogs will eventually become related, even without close inbreeding...


Yes, all humans are related in fact if you go back far enough, aren't we? That doesn't mean we are inbred however. The closeness of the relationship is what matters. With a large enough founding population and care to preserve diversity populations CAN be maintained without increased rates of illnesses. Look up genetic drift, genetic draft, minimum viable population and the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Model. - http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_2.htm

_. . .In natural populations, genetic drift and natural selection do not act in isolation; both forces are always at play. However, the degree to which alleles are affected by drift or selection varies according to population size. The magnitude of drift on allele frequencies per generation is larger in small populations. . ._​
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_hitchhiking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population



Spicy1_VV said:


> Even if you start with a large number of dogs. Potentially a problem can arise as recessive defect remained hidden for numerous generations. This is far less likely with very tight inbreeding..


Cavaliers had tight, very tight, in and linebreeding right from the very start. COIs up in the 40% range and lots of parent/offspring and sister/brother pairings, as well as tons of half sister/half brother pairings. You know what does not get revealed through this? Incompletely penetrant and late onset polygenetic conditions. Instead they get fixed in the breed and show up 25 or so years later when the bottlenecking through favored popular sires and further inbreeding in a closed gene pool makes the pool so tight it squeeks.

So, no, this is not less likely if you start out with tight inbreeding. The only thing that might reveal is some of the simple recessives and a huge number of conditions do not follow that inheritance pattern.



Spicy1_VV said:


> Not to make accusations but sometimes breeders lie or deny. They are not honest or don't share info, this is one thing that allows problems to become prolific in the breed. It's much easier to keep quite and with some problems bury puppies...


Yes that becomes obvious. Some of these breeders are being very honest, however. The conditions that have been specialized in the Cavalier breed do not have the traditional 'simple recessive' and 'simple dominant' inheritance patterns which means they can go hidden for that many generations, especially in a breed with small numbers in their litters (4 pups). 

Don't be thinking that Cavaliers are the only unlucky breed either. MANY breeds, currently, are dealing with similar conditions and high rates of problems.



Spicy1_VV said:


> In inbreeding you are likely to see the problem sooner rather than later. ...


ONLY the simple recessive ones . . . and not necessarily those.

Dr. John Burchard, biologist and Saluki breeder, broke these numbers down and presented them at one point on the Cangen list.

In the case of a simple single allele recessive defect, IF you had at your disposal a homozygous *affected* dog to mate to with a possible clear/possible carrier, once you produced 7 of 7 pups clear from this pair then there is a 99% probability that you don’t have a carrier. Of course this is only possible, as well, if the condition is not lethal as you could not morally make these test breedings if it was.

(The way the numbers break down is that with this mating the chance of getting one of one normal offspring is 1 out of 2 - 50%. The chance of two of two normal offspring then is 1 out of 4 - 25% . . . three of three is 12.5% . . . four of four is 6.25% . . . and you work down to where the probability falls below 1% which is at 7 of 7 pups.)

Now, if you only have at your disposal, for a test mating, a known carrier (having only one recessive deleterious gene instead of two as an affected would have) then the number of pups produced from the pair (carrier to possible clear/possible carrier) to get 99% certainty of a clear dog on one side, *is 17*. 

*If anyone missed that, breeding a test dog (unknown if he is clear or carries) to a known carrier you cannot get 99% certainty of him being clear until 17 clear pups are produced.*

Now, if the argument is that INBREEDING will bring these to the surface, which is what is suggested by the argument that inbreeding can be used as an effective tool, then you are looking at even a higher number of animals needed. In the case of breeding a possible clear/possible carrier father to his own daughters to figure out if he is a carrier, then, if he is a carrier only half of his daughters would be carriers as well. You wouldn’t know which ones. *You would have to produce 35 of 35 clear pups from a sire's own daughters (multiple daughters) to have 99% certainty that you did not have a carrier on your hands.*

I don’t know any breeder willing to keep 35 highly inbred and possibly affected pups. What would you do with 35 possible carriers? I don't know any breeder anywhere in any breed that has done this. I've seen parent/offspring breedings but only recently found one sire bred to two daughters and only 9 pups were produced all total.

Do you?

Most I know that believe and claim they've 'cleared' their line have bred father/daughter or sister/brother maybe once, gotten a clear litter, bred one of those to a close cousin, and gotten clear, and then made the declaration that they can't have carriers. That is ignorance (as in without knowledge) and dangerous.



Spicy1_VV said:


> What do you mean do I breed in a closed gene pool? I understand the question but at the sametime?


I don't know what breed you breed and if that breed still has an open registry or not. By memory I thought you had your own line but it was not from a purebreed but I could have you mixed up for someone else. I was asking for the sake of clarity. If you are in an open gene pool and you mess your line up bigtime there are options to go out. In closed gene pools there are not. It makes a difference.

SOB


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

Thanks to SOB for another fabulous reply and much more pertinent information to digest.



Spicy1_VV said:


> Really? My dogs are fine. Inbreeding doesn't create a genetic problem, but it can bring to light recessive problems. If there are no recessive problems and the line doesn't suffer inbreeding depression then you will continue to produce healthy dogs. Since dogs can only produce genetic defects for which they have the genes for.


First of all, the whole issue behind inbreeding is that carriers (heterozygotes) are unaffected, and it's impossible to detect problems. In other words, the animal appears completely normal. But breed that individual to a related individual, and you'll begin to see those problems expressed, as you get progeny who are homozygotes. As you said, inbreeding brings to light recessive problems.

Secondly, random mutations occur in every generation, so it's nonsense to say that dogs can only have genetic defects that their parents had or were carrying. On average, humans have 6 of these random mutations that would be problematic in the homozygous condition, but are never expressed because they are in the heterozygous condition. I've not seen these numbers for dogs, so I can't say how many new random mutations crop up every generation in dogs, but in any case, it is not insignificant. No dog is completely free of genetic abnormalities, so you can't just say "if there are no recessive problems...you will continue to produce healthy dogs." There are never "no recessive problems".

Lastly, the argument that "my dogs are fine" doesn't work, particularly if you're looking at a breed without a long history of inbreeding. Detrimental effects of inbreeding CAN arise quickly (even in a single generation), but it is the ACCUMULATION of effects over several generations that really becomes debilitating. The bottom line is that by promoting the breeding of purebred dogs with closed registries, AKC and others are condemning dogs to the effects of inbreeding in the long run. You might think you're tricking nature, but she's got surprises in store.


----------



## jersey_gray (Dec 8, 2011)

Spicy1_VV said:


> Really? My dogs are fine. Inbreeding doesn't create a genetic problem, but it can bring to light recessive problems. If there are no recessive problems and the line doesn't suffer inbreeding depression then you will continue to produce healthy dogs. Since dogs can only produce genetic defects for which they have the genes for.


THIS is why the general public such as myself run like hell from show dogs and show breeders. Inbreeding is not healthy or acceptable and you don't need anything more than COMMON SENSE to tell you that. A lack of genetic diversity is very, very bad. As stated, I'm a "regular" dog owner-not a breeder or a geneticist or even involved in the dog show world. Just have always loved animals in general, dogs in particular. Intentionally breeding dogs with a high risk to the puppies of being born severely deformed and/or dead would NOT be acceptable to the public and puts yet another bad mark on the fancy. I don't know a single person who puts any value into AKC papers-several of them have purebreds (myself included actually, I have a Chihuahua). I don't know anyone with a good opinion of the AKC or show dogs. If the AKC and the breeders want respect from us "regular folks" then they need to change the way things are being done. Speaking for the John and Suzy Q's of the country. 

Oh, and neither myself or any of the people I know are members of PETA or any other animal rights group.


----------



## jersey_gray (Dec 8, 2011)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Thanks to SOB for another fabulous reply and much more pertinent information to digest.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very well said!


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

The inbred (mother to son, brother to sister) litters I have known, which were accidental BTW produced nice dogs who lived long, healthy lives. Nice dogs in that they were all health tested, multiple puppies in the litter were titled to high levels and they were all around great representatives of their breed. They suffered none of the health issues the breed is prone to either. Yet my outcrossed bitch has and produced a late onset genetic eye issue. And yes she was screened but that doesn't help if the problem doesn't show up for several years. 

I do think there is an issue with genetic diversity and the use of popular sires, especially in the low number breeds. That sounds like the issue with Cavaliers? 

It's a bit funny to me that people always associate "inbreeding" with purebreds. My neighbors had a litter of inbred mixed breeds that went to the pound. They are one of quite a few inbred mixed breed litters I have known about, some were quite inbred (offspring of several generations of inbreeding breeding to their siblings or parents). I suspect that goes on a lot more than people realize.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> My jaw just hit the floor. IMO, this is the true abomination. The merle x merle breeding is unconscionable, to be sure, but purposely breeding dogs that are closely related to one another is inviting all kinds of trouble. With the merle x merle breeding, the risks are known (25% of puppies, on average, will be MM, and they are likely to be affected negatively). But with that level of inbreeding, the risks are no less real, it is just impossible to calculate them. Shame on the breeders for doing this, the breed club for allowing it, and AKC for promoting such things!


LIne breeding like this is fine as long as appropriate outcrosses are done. It's no more dangerouse than breeding unrelated dogs with the same potential health problems. It's not something that's done lightly.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Alerondogs said:


> The inbred (mother to son, brother to sister) litters I have known, which were accidental BTW produced nice dogs who lived long, healthy lives. Nice dogs in that they were all health tested, multiple puppies in the litter were titled to high levels and they were all around great representatives of their breed. They suffered none of the health issues the breed is prone to either. Yet my outcrossed bitch has and produced a late onset genetic eye issue. And yes she was screened but that doesn't help if the problem doesn't show up for several years. .


This means your 'outcrossed' bitch, who has this difficulty, got it from your own lines and as well the one she crossed into (which was probably linebred) had also specialized it. She could not 'have it' elsewise to pass on. IF you did not breed her and bought in an outcrossed bitch then SHE got the propensity from two linebred lines that specialized the eye problem and then managed to find themselves and come together. The odds of this in a closed gene pool where linebreeding is used is much higher than outside of one.

In regards to the 'litters you've known', well of course. I've known EXACTLY the opposite of you. That is how odds work. Anecdotal stories go both ways . . . always . . . because people are speaking of low numbers that they've personally known. When you 'know' 100s of pups produced by inbreeding, and compare them to 100s of dogs produced without inbreeding then you can compare the health results. Doing so before high enough numbers means nothing. 

There have been people that HAVE looked at large numbers. http://www.parispoodles.com/Inbreeding.html

_"The least inbred group (Less than 6.25% Inbred) survive, on average, 14 years -- 
approximately 4 years longer than the most highly inbred." _​



Alerondogs said:


> I do think there is an issue with genetic diversity and the use of popular sires, especially in the low number breeds. That sounds like the issue with Cavaliers? .


If anyone goes through the pedigree databases it is easy to see popular sires have been a HUGE ongoing problem in Cavaliers, as well as a 'culture' mentored forward that almost continuous linebreeding is the way to breed to keep type.

In regards to them being a low numbered breed, they are not. They are like the American Cocker in popularity in the U.K. Our American Cockers are not a low number breed either and have a full host of difficulties to deal with as well.



Alerondogs said:


> It's a bit funny to me that people always associate "inbreeding" with purebreds. My neighbors had a litter of inbred mixed breeds that went to the pound. They are one of quite a few inbred mixed breed litters I have known about, some were quite inbred (offspring of several generations of inbreeding breeding to their siblings or parents). I suspect that goes on a lot more than people realize.


Good to point this out. Yes some mixed dogs are also inbred. They are not as usually inbred for generations. As they do not contribute BACK to a closed gene pool, and as most often if any breeding forward occurs it does so as an outcross, their future influence is of less consideration . . . but some messes from inbreeding certainly do occur in mixbreed dogs.



cshellenberger said:


> LIne breeding like this is fine as long as appropriate outcrosses are done. It's not something that's done lightly.


This is your opinion but it has NO basis in fact. If so, kindly explain it.

First of all - within a closed gene pool 'appropriate outcrosses' cannot be found. The same foundation stock is behind all the dogs in the breed, often with bottlenecks at some point. In a breed's early history unrelated dogs are findable. As generations continue they are not. 

Secondly you are setting up a false comparison here. Unrelated dogs WOULD NOT HAVE high odds of having the same 'potential' problematic alleles passed on to them from the same ancestor. To suggest they would is ludicrous. On top of that within the gene pool of closely related dogs you are working within the same limited DLA haplotypes and risking homozygosity on the MHC at a much higher rate than would be risked with unrelated dogs. This means a higher propensity toward cancers, allergies, digestive difficulties, vaccination reactions etc.

The major histocompatibility complex and its functions - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK27156/

DLA diversity - http://www.genoscoper.com/in_english2/gene_tests/gene_tests/dla_diversity/​
In regards to it being done lightly or not . . . . my experience is that the people who do such things ARE doing it lightly as they have NO CLUE that they are doing what amounts to a scientific experiment and the similar statements they make to yours above show how little they have considered.

Do many of them LOVE their dogs? Are many of them kind and caring people? Absolutely. 

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> LIne breeding like this is fine as long as appropriate outcrosses are done. It's no more dangerouse than breeding unrelated dogs with the same potential health problems. It's not something that's done lightly.


When you look at the BINGO effect, continuous outcrossing can create problems too. In some health issues (CHD, epilepsy) the issue is polygenetic. And you don't see affected unless you have ALL the genes necessary to create the problem. So, if one line only carries B-I-N you can avoid that problem unless you outcross to a dog who carries G-O. And the dog who carries G-O would not express the problem unless bred to a dog that carries the other necessary genes. I think line breeding (and to an extent inbreeding) is part of establishing a breed, and establishing known qualities. If you start with healthy animals, you will have healthy animals (unless the inbreeding is intense). Apparently Cavs started with very unhealthy animals.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Pawzk9 said:


> When you look at the BINGO effect, continuous outcrossing can create problems too. In some health issues (CHD, epilepsy) the issue is polygenetic. And you don't see affected unless you have ALL the genes necessary to create the problem. So, if one line only carries B-I-N you can avoid that problem unless you outcross to a dog who carries G-O. And the dog who carries G-O would not express the problem unless bred to a dog that carries the other necessary genes. I think line breeding (and to an extent inbreeding) is part of establishing a breed, and establishing known qualities. If you start with healthy animals, you will have healthy animals (unless the inbreeding is intense). Apparently Cavs started with very unhealthy animals.


And again the odds of the B-I-N + G-O effect are increased when you are working within a closed population and not working at preserving diversity ie. doing a good amount of closer linebreeding and inbreeding. With polygenetic disorders (CHD, epilepsy, MVD, CM/SM) those are not revealed until many, many generations later and often when lines are crossed because those that have been steadily linebreeding have gotten to the point that they HAVE to go out, often due to fecundity.

Or does someone here believe that those that linebreed don't eventually have to go out?

Some breeders are lucky and breed smart and can go 25 or 30 years . . . but again, they leave a legacy to be cleaned up afterwards and to be suffered by the pups produced and those that care for them.

Some are relatively healthier than others and that can buy some time, but here is no such thing as starting with 'healthy' animals. No one can know and every animal holds numerous deleterious alleles. 

_Recent data from the 1,000 genomes project revealed that humans carry, on average, between 250 and 300 recessive mutations and at least 50 mutations previously associated with inherited disorders, and it seems reasonable to assume the average dog will carry the same burden of disease-associated variants (Durbin et al. 2010).* Expecting breeding dogs to be clear of all risk alleles, therefore, is unrealistic and will severely jeopardise breed diversity*_​
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g0434425nv0314g0/fulltext.pdf

IF breeders can 'know' which dogs are healthy to start with, IF genetic load is not a factor, why don't breeders take father to daughter numerous times and then the daughters back to their own sons and continue like that for 5 or 6 gens and see what comes out? IF they have healthy dogs there should be no problems then, should there?

SOB


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> This means your 'outcrossed' bitch, who has this difficulty, got it from your own lines and as well the one she crossed into (which was probably linebred) had also specialized it. She could not 'have it' elsewise to pass on. IF you did not breed her and bought in an outcrossed bitch then SHE got the propensity from two linebred lines that specialized the eye problem and then managed to find themselves and come together. The odds of this in a closed gene pool where linebreeding is used is much higher than outside of one.


 Yeah I don't really have a line. Obviously scrapped the idea of breeding from her after the health issue surfaced. I've known a lot of the dogs on her mother's side - siblings, half siblings, nearly whole litters and none have had this issue. It is not a problem that is scientifically known to be totally genetic but I think that it obviously is genetic, as she is affected and so are a handful of her puppies from two litters (one in the first litter of 8 and two in the second litter of 5). FWIW I know a dog who produced one puppy in probably 5 litters who had this issue, none of her kids or grandkids produced it and she didn't produce it in the litter she had after being accidentally bred by her son, who happened to be a littermate to the dog with the problem.



spanielorbust said:


> There have been people that HAVE looked at large numbers. http://www.parispoodles.com/Inbreeding.html
> 
> _"The least inbred group (Less than 6.25% Inbred) survive, on average, 14 years --
> approximately 4 years longer than the most highly inbred." _​


 I don't have Poodles but I know there's some pretty wide spread issues in the breed. The breed I have been involved in breeding often lives into their middle to upper teens. Two of my dogs each have a parent who is 17+ and nearly all grandparents lived between 14-18, with the exception of accidental type deaths. Of course, I've only known a few litters who are "highly inbred" but most of these dogs are linebred.



spanielorbust said:


> If anyone goes through the pedigree databases it is easy to see popular sires have been a HUGE ongoing problem in Cavaliers, as well as a 'culture' mentored forward that almost continuous linebreeding is the way to breed to keep type.
> In regards to them being a low numbered breed, they are not. They are like the American Cocker in popularity in the U.K. Our American Cockers are not a low number breed either and have a full host of difficulties to deal with as well.


 I don't know much about the Spaniel breeds TBH, I didn't realize there were so many Cavs out there. 

I think popular sire syndrome is not really the same as individual breeders using linebreeding or even inbreeding within their own breeding program. To me, popular sire syndrome is more an issue of breeders not thinking towards the future and maintaining genetic diversity within the breed. My thinking would tend towards maintaining dogs with pedigrees which don't have that male in them for the future.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> And again the odds of the B-I-N + G-O effect are increased when you are working within a closed population and not working at preserving diversity ie. doing a good amount of closer linebreeding and inbreeding. With polygenetic disorders (CHD, epilepsy, MVD, CM/SM) those are not revealed until many, many generations later and often when lines are crossed because those that have been steadily linebreeding have gotten to the point that they HAVE to go out, often due to fecundity.SOB


If the G-O doesn't exist in the line, you'd have to bring it in from another line. I don't think anyone here has said that you can inbreed indefinitely.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> IF breeders can 'know' which dogs are healthy to start with, IF genetic load is not a factor, why don't breeders take father to daughter numerous times and then the daughters back to their own sons and continue like that for 5 or 6 gens and see what comes out? IF they have healthy dogs there should be no problems then, should there?
> 
> SOB


I don't think anyone here has actually suggested that, have they? Eventually you would get inbreeding depression/immune issues.


----------



## stacey101 (Sep 20, 2010)

Keechak said:


> How exactly was Westminster rewarding cruelty?


I was wondering the same


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Alerondogs said:


> . . . .. It is not a problem that is scientifically known to be totally genetic but I think that it obviously is genetic, as she is affected and so are a handful of her puppies from two litters (one in the first litter of 8 and two in the second litter of 5). FWIW I know a dog who produced one puppy in probably 5 litters who had this issue, none of her kids or grandkids produced it and she didn't produce it in the litter she had after being accidentally bred by her son, who happened to be a littermate to the dog with the problem.


Both MVD and CM/SM are the same in the Cavalier breed . . . unpredictable and it is because of the late onset and incompletely penetrant factors, and what is probably polygenetic inheritance patterns. These conditions mimic conditions that are environmentally brought on, and are usually at first dismissed (understandably). It could easily be that Cavalier the breed has 'lost' protective alleles, as much as it is about other alleles becoming fixed.



Alerondogs said:


> . I think popular sire syndrome is not really the same as individual breeders using linebreeding or even inbreeding within their own breeding program. To me, popular sire syndrome is more an issue of breeders not thinking towards the future and maintaining genetic diversity within the breed.


They all drill down the same in the end. Popular sire syndrome is probably responsible for the quickest loss of diversity in many breeds. 



Alerondogs said:


> . My thinking would tend towards maintaining dogs with pedigrees which don't have that male in them for the future.


This was said well by someone on the Cangen - L list, and I will credit them the idea. You've hit the nail on the head with regard to needing to maintain dogs in pedigrees. The difficulty comes when everyone breeding to Mr. Wonderful believes everyone else is maintaining lines without him.

_"It is true that inbreeding alone did not cause the problem. What caused the problem was all the other dogs that did not contribute their genes to the population, and thereby boosted the impact of the Mr. Wonderful's infusion. How many males suffered "genetic death" because of Mr. Wonderful? How many sons and daughters of other dogs suffered the same genetic death because of Mr. Wonderful's children? Mr. Wonderful's genome was injected in a walloping dose into the population to the exclusion of many others. Each inbreeding is done to the exclusion of an outcross *that might have preserved an important haplotype or rare trait*."_​


Pawzk9 said:


> If the G-O doesn't exist in the line, you'd have to bring it in from another line. I don't think anyone here has said that you can inbreed indefinitely.


Yes, and as you say because you cannot inbreed indefinately you HAVE to eventually go out. Then, you have got B-I-N perfected and the other line has G-O perfected and you find you can't go there. You look to another line and you find that if it is not B-I-N x G-O, then it is B-I-N x D-E-R, or B-I-N x N-I-E and they can all possibly be problematic. If you are lucky the other lines will be compatible.

If it is a known that you cannot inbreed indefinately due to inbreeding depression and immune issues, then why is is NOT a known that when you linebreed in a closed population you are more quickly diminishing the genetic diversity and doing precisely the same thing but at a slower - more torturous - rate?



Pawzk9 said:


> I don't think anyone here has actually suggested that, have they? Eventually you would get inbreeding depression/immune issues.


Breeders, last page, suggested that it is safe to linebreed if you know the historical dogs are healthy. This ignores the contribution to the full gene pool that breeders make. This ignores the fact that eventually inbreeding depression and immune issues will surface. This ignores that the 'knowledge' of the dog is incomplete.

I questioned that if they know the dogs are healthy then why not inbreed away? The reason for the question was because of the facts being ignored.

SOB


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

spanielorbust said:


> _"It is true that inbreeding alone did not cause the problem. What caused the problem was all the other dogs that did not contribute their genes to the population, and thereby boosted the impact of the Mr. Wonderful's infusion. How many males suffered "genetic death" because of Mr. Wonderful? How many sons and daughters of other dogs suffered the same genetic death because of Mr. Wonderful's children? Mr. Wonderful's genome was injected in a walloping dose into the population to the exclusion of many others. Each inbreeding is done to the exclusion of an outcross that might have preserved an important haplotype or rare trait."_​


That may be one of the clearest/most succinct explanations of that particular phenomenon that I've seen.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

I'm confused. MxM is not a good breeding, I know that. I am very disappointed in this man for being such a shame to the dog world..Such a stereotype.

That being said..How is this Westminster's fault? I'm genuinely asking.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Shaina said:


> Having read a lot of the BorderWars stuff over the years, I would say that the title is not so much AR as Anti-AKC. It might be used by AR, yes, but the owner of the BW blog is most definitely NOT a PETA type. *If you read the whole piece I think it's more that he's saying AKC and CCA could have and should have kept the offspring of this dog from being in the ring in the first place, and therefore they failed and are de facto rewarding it.* Also, he's being sensationalistic. But the heart of the text and the related blogs blame the breeders involved.
> 
> Which should also not be confused with breeders in general, before anything heads down that path.


This is from the first page and explains. 

SOB


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> This is from the first page and explains.
> 
> SOB


I guess so but unless the judge knew, how can you blame Westminster? Isn't it the breed clubs fault for elevating this man (I saw the gushing article someone posted a few pages earlier) beyond reproach?

What do people think should happen to stop this sort of thing happening again? (To the people who believe it shouldn't happen)

ETA: Thank you for posting that for me, I meant to say thank you! Also your posts here are extremely informative and helpful, even if I don't understand some of them lol.)


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

The only thing that would stop it would be if the breed club ruled against registering the offspring of Merle x Merle breedings, which the AKC could enforce.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

cshellenberger said:


> The only thing that would stop it would be if the breed club ruled against registering the offspring of Merle x Merle breedings, which the AKC could enforce.


I think this should be enforced.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

The breed club would have to change their standards first, only then would anything be done and all current registrations would be honored.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

cshellenberger said:


> The breed club would have to change their standards first, only then would anything be done and all current registrations would be honored.


Oh yeah, I forgot how breed clubs hate change lol.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

spanielorbust said:


> This is your opinion but it has NO basis in fact. If so, kindly explain it.


Thanks, SOB. You got there first, but said exactly what I was going to say. Science simply doesn't support the idea that linebreeding is "fine".



spanielorbust said:


> Do many of them LOVE their dogs? Are many of them kind and caring people? Absolutely.


Another really good point. I know one or two irresponsible breeders, a handful of good breeders, and several more who aspire to breed. In general, they are lovely people who genuinely care about their dogs and their breed. Their devotion is not something that I question. What I do question is their understanding of basic genetics and the consequences of their decisions.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

jersey_gray said:


> THIS is why the general public such as myself run like hell from show dogs and show breeders. Inbreeding is not healthy or acceptable and you don't need anything more than COMMON SENSE to tell you that. A lack of genetic diversity is very, very bad. As stated, I'm a "regular" dog owner-not a breeder or a geneticist or even involved in the dog show world. Just have always loved animals in general, dogs in particular. Intentionally breeding dogs with a high risk to the puppies of being born severely deformed and/or dead would NOT be acceptable to the public and puts yet another bad mark on the fancy. I don't know a single person who puts any value into AKC papers-several of them have purebreds (myself included actually, I have a Chihuahua). I don't know anyone with a good opinion of the AKC or show dogs. If the AKC and the breeders want respect from us "regular folks" then they need to change the way things are being done. Speaking for the John and Suzy Q's of the country.
> 
> Oh, and neither myself or any of the people I know are members of PETA or any other animal rights group.


I applaud this point of view, I only wish it was more common. Unfortunately, I think public perception of registries and show breeding in general is not as bad as you state. John and Suzy Q generally have no understanding of basic genetics, fail to do their research, and assume that AKC papers are indicative that their puppy is healthy. That said, I think the public is slowly becoming better informed, and the number of dogs registered annually by the AKC continues to fall. We desperately need a better system, as I do not relish the idea of anarchy in the dog world. 

For the record, I don't associate with AR groups, and I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone on DF openly admit to such a thing. Plenty of accusations fly, though, whenever someone criticizes registries. Most of us here are interested in animal welfare, not animal rights.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

spanielorbust said:


> 9 of 10 started mouse strains die as the suffer from it to the point that they can't reproduce. The others have to be kept in special environments to protect them from elements. They all suffer from it . . . and the reasons that ARE known point to homozygosity on the MHC being a huge problem with regard to immunity.


9 of out 10 

Some inbreds don't suffer and die. 

You can always find cite the studies you want and use data which supports your idea.



> Which ones don't? I've yet to find one.


I consider my breed moderately healthy. 

Some breeds the majority of the population has issue or you see serious problems at a higher incidence. 
Cancer in Flat Coat is widespread. All Dals have Hyperuricosuria. DCM seems to be widespread in Dobes. 
Havanese have some health problems but not a high frequency of serious issues. 

If you look at different breeds you will see what I'm talking about. 



> I am glad to know that you are not certain. Britannia of Ttiweh, in the Cavalier breed b. in 1956 (27%+ 8 gen COI) had two pups that both made it into the gene pool and neither really prolifically for a few generations. She has made a major impact, however, 40 years and forward on. Can't find a Cavalier without her back there.
> 
> _Analysis of the pedigree database indicated that syringomyelia had a high incidence in certain families and lines. Four key dogs, C, D, M and S, consistently occurred within the individual pedigrees but were not always present in the same pedigree. These represented four major breeding lines. Table 1 illustrates when affected dogs descended from dogs C, D, M and S . . . The pedigrees of dogs C, D, M and S were then studied to identify any common ancestry. All of the affected dogs could be traced back to a single common ancestor, bitch G (figure 3)._
> 
> ...


Yes so clearly she has a lot of progeny. It's not about number of offspring but overall progeny. If dogs get bred a lot they take away diversity and issues they have can become widespread. 

Of course I don't believe my dogs will greatly impact the breed. You are looking at a different scenario. 



> Yes, all humans are related in fact if you go back far enough, aren't we? That doesn't mean we are inbred however. The closeness of the relationship is what matters. With a large enough founding population and care to preserve diversity populations CAN be maintained without increased rates of illnesses. Look up genetic drift, genetic draft, minimum viable population and the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium Model. - http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_2.htm
> 
> _. . .In natural populations, genetic drift and natural selection do not act in isolation; both forces are always at play. However, the degree to which alleles are affected by drift or selection varies according to population size. The magnitude of drift on allele frequencies per generation is larger in small populations. . ._​
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_hitchhiking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population


Don't need to look it up already know. 

Humans have much higher breeding population in comparison to pure bred dogs, even when you location restrictions are considered. 

Dog breeds started with a limited number of dogs some had more diversity to start others very few. Any problems in the original stock can be spread through the breed (founder effect). Which most likely inbreeding took place, original problems were in said breed and genetic diversity reduced. Closeness of relationship is what counts but not only what counts. Even when breeding "unrelated" dogs you can produce widespread problems. The dogs are related at some point is it 12 or 24 generations back it depends. It also means that closer ancestors could be carrying original problems. 

Continually out crossing will also cause there to be no unrelated dogs. It won't maintain diversity infinitely.



> Cavaliers had tight, very tight, in and linebreeding right from the very start. COIs up in the 40% range and lots of parent/offspring and sister/brother pairings, as well as tons of half sister/half brother pairings. You know what does not get revealed through this? Incompletely penetrant and late onset polygenetic conditions. Instead they get fixed in the breed and show up 25 or so years later when the bottlenecking through favored popular sires and further inbreeding in a closed gene pool makes the pool so tight it squeeks.
> 
> So, no, this is not less likely if you start out with tight inbreeding. The only thing that might reveal is some of the simple recessives and a huge number of conditions do not follow that inheritance pattern.


I understand the issues in dealing with polygenic traits. Not to mention late on set!

But what you are talking about is a breed problem and a breed. 

It isn't comparable to my dogs and how I chose to breed them. They will not impact the breed negatively or positively. Popular sires, breeding favored lines, picking what's trendy, breeding dogs who produce problems is what has effect on the breed gene pool. Those dogs gene become prolific in the gene pool. Everytime a popular sire was bred again and again it eliminated other dogs genes which caused a lack of diversity. It is worse if they spread a genetic defect. Now almost everyone's dogs are related and oh there is problems. Oh yeah and breeding young dogs and breeding them often. 

In 25yrs I hope to be still breeding but eventually I won't be and I guess my line will die out.



> Yes that becomes obvious. Some of these breeders are being very honest, however. The conditions that have been specialized in the Cavalier breed do not have the traditional 'simple recessive' and 'simple dominant' inheritance patterns which means they can go hidden for that many generations, especially in a breed with small numbers in their litters (4 pups).


When dealing with such issues it can be hard to reduce these problems. I understand the issues of some breeds. Small litter size is also another hazard. Even with a simple recessive when breeding carriers you could expect to produce all normal pups in litter of 4 around 30% of the time.



> Dr. John Burchard, biologist and Saluki breeder, broke these numbers down and presented them at one point on the Cangen list.
> 
> In the case of a simple single allele recessive defect, IF you had at your disposal a homozygous *affected* dog to mate to with a possible clear/possible carrier, once you produced 7 of 7 pups clear from this pair then there is a 99% probability that you don’t have a carrier. Of course this is only possible, as well, if the condition is not lethal as you could not morally make these test breedings if it was.
> 
> (The way the numbers break down is that with this mating the chance of getting one of one normal offspring is 1 out of 2 - 50%. The chance of two of two normal offspring then is 1 out of 4 - 25% . . . three of three is 12.5% . . . four of four is 6.25% . . . and you work down to where the probability falls below 1% which is at 7 of 7 pups.)


And in breeds which produce 8-10 pups on a regular basis you could clear a dog in one breeding. 

In a litter of 8 normal pups the probability that dog isn't a carrier is 99.6%. So there is only a 0.04% of said dog still being a carrier after producing a single normal litter.



> Now, if you only have at your disposal, for a test mating, a known carrier (having only one recessive deleterious gene instead of two as an affected would have) then the number of pups produced from the pair (carrier to possible clear/possible carrier) to get 99% certainty of a clear dog on one side, *is 17*.


From a litter of 7 its 13.4%% chance that the dog is still a carrier. If you have 9 pups in a 2nd litter giving you 16 pups that's only a 1% chance the dog is still a carrier. 99% likely they are not.

I understand your breed produces small litters on average as do many. You may need 5 litters of test matings to be certain. But some breeds produce good size litters on average. 



> Now, if the argument is that INBREEDING will bring these to the surface, which is what is suggested by the argument that inbreeding can be used as an effective tool, then you are looking at even a higher number of animals needed. In the case of breeding a possible clear/possible carrier father to his own daughters to figure out if he is a carrier, then, if he is a carrier only half of his daughters would be carriers as well. You wouldn’t know which ones. *You would have to produce 35 of 35 clear pups from a sire's own daughters (multiple daughters) to have 99% certainty that you did not have a carrier on your hands.*


Nope. Knew this didn't sound right. 

Using the above numbers. If you produced a litter of 8 there is 55% chance sire still a carrier. 

If bred to 2 daughters for litters of 7 and 9 about a 30% chance he's a carrier. 

If bred to 7 daughters with litters of 5 each there is about 3% chance of being a carrier so only 97% likely not a carrier. 

If bred to 4 daughters with 3 litters of 10 and 1 litter of 5 there is just over 9% chance he carriers a defect. 

At any rate its not a manner of proving a male to be a carrier and done simply to be a test mating. Obviously with known geneotype of 1 parent you have a better idea of if an animal is clear or not. In most cases it is more likely you will produce a defect with generations of close inbreeding instead of ou tcrossing. 



> I don’t know any breeder willing to keep 35 highly inbred and possibly affected pups. What would you do with 35 possible carriers? I don't know any breeder anywhere in any breed that has done this. I've seen parent/offspring breedings but only recently found one sire bred to two daughters and only 9 pups were produced all total.
> 
> Do you?


You are going off topic. Father to daughter being used as a test mating to see if the sire carriers problems. Who suggested that we actually used inbreeding for that? 

If you are breeding a possible carrier to an affected dogs you stated 17 pups are needed too prove reasonably a dog isn't a carrier. What breeder wants to keep 17 pups especially with late onset disease? Some of which will certainly be carriers and others who might be affected?

Anyway whether you are inbreeding or doing an out cross (which can still produce genetic defects esp with a widespread problem) you don't need to keep all pups. It's called follow up. It doesn't matter if you produce one out crossed litter if 4 or two inbred litters of 7 and 9 you need to keep up on pups produced. Or how would you ever know if your dog produced a defect. 

My dogs grand sire was bred to 5 of his daughters (one was his daughter / grand daughter). Others sire was bred to 2 daughters, 2 nieces, a couple line breedings. The other was bred to 2 daughters and his nieces as well. With some others they've also been bred to successive daughters (they are the sire, grand sire, great grand sire, ect) In some they chose to do mother to son, half siblings or full siblings. Though I'm not sure how this is relevant. 

With each generation you also increase the potential of producing a defect if its there. But then you also increase the chance the family of dogs is normal with normal generations. 



> Most I know that believe and claim they've 'cleared' their line have bred father/daughter or sister/brother maybe once, gotten a clear litter, bred one of those to a close cousin, and gotten clear, and then made the declaration that they can't have carriers. That is ignorance (as in without knowledge) and dangerous.


True. They can still be carriers. But with multiple generations of close inbreeding and a maintained / increased high COI reduces the risk they are carriers. 

There is a reason why some who've been breeding a line for 25, 40yrs or more when a family has been breeding their line passed on fir generations don't want to outcross. It's for fear of bringing something in. Other do cross but minimally. 



> I don't know what breed you breed and if that breed still has an open registry or not. By memory I thought you had your own line but it was not from a purebreed but I could have you mixed up for someone else. I was asking for the sake of clarity. If you are in an open gene pool and you mess your line up bigtime there are options to go out. In closed gene pools there are not. It makes a difference.


My breed is pure. APBT. I can out cross to AST or SBT (which you informed me can also have SM) While AST haven't been out crossed to another breed its still diversity to the APBT but then again AST also developed breed specific problems. So crossing to either is a risk. 

The option if this get "messed up big time" would be to scrap the line.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

spanielorbust said:


> Some breeders are lucky and breed smart and can go 25 or 30 years . . . but again, they leave a legacy to be cleaned up afterwards and to be suffered by the pups produced and those that care for them.


Some have been at it longer so really one can't say with certainty they will leave a mess. 



> IF breeders can 'know' which dogs are healthy to start with, IF genetic load is not a factor, why don't breeders take father to daughter numerous times and then the daughters back to their own sons and continue like that for 5 or 6 gens and see what comes out? IF they have healthy dogs there should be no problems then, should there?


It's not like you can know everything about a dog. 

But to answer your last question SOMETIMES THEY.DO, that or similar. So? Since its been done. What can you say. 

That's how you get dogs with COI of 50, 60, 70, 80%.

Other choose not to and only inbreed close for several generations then do lesser inbreeding COI usually levels off 30-40%. But its still continued inbreeding.

Some outcross to get some other traits or see how the line produces.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

cshellenberger said:


> The breed club would have to change their standards first, only then would anything be done and all current registrations would be honored.


I'm not sure how changing the standard would work. Dogs with white out of pattern are already disallowed in the breed standard. But dogs which do not meet the breed standard are still registerable. For instance I have a dog who has an undershot bite, which is disqualified under the breed standards of both AKC and ASCA. She still has all kinds of ASCA and AKC titles - just not in conformation.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> First of all, the whole issue behind inbreeding is that carriers (heterozygotes) are unaffected, and it's impossible to detect problems. In other words, the animal appears completely normal. But breed that individual to a related individual, and you'll begin to see those problems expressed, as you get progeny who are homozygotes. As you said, inbreeding brings to light recessive problems.


Yes as I said already. It's recognized issue. It isn't impossible to know if dogs are het. for some issues thanks to genetic testing. For others sometimes there is some effect because of incomplete dominance, the dominant trait doesn't fully protect against the recessive. Though in the homozygote you see the problem full blown. 

I realize with some test like cancer or DCM a dog can still develop the issue. 



> Secondly, random mutations occur in every generation, so it's nonsense to say that dogs can only have genetic defects that their parents had or were carrying. On average, humans have 6 of these random mutations that would be problematic in the homozygous condition, but are never expressed because they are in the heterozygous condition. I've not seen these numbers for dogs, so I can't say how many new random mutations crop up every generation in dogs, but in any case, it is not insignificant. No dog is completely free of genetic abnormalities, so you can't just say "if there are no recessive problems...you will continue to produce healthy dogs." There are never "no recessive problems".


The frequency of genetic mutation for disease isn't known in dogs. Obviously a lot of mutations have occurred. We have different coat types, colors, sizes AND diseases. A new mutation for a genetic defect occurring is far less likely then something which is already there. If you produce a dog or obtain a dog affected with a defect not previously seen in the breed or dogs then you can suspect genetic mutation. 

Not all mutations are bad, some can be good. 

Typically when a breeder is producing healthy dogs they will continue to do so though there is a slight chance of mutation and a possible chance of a recessive popping up after a few generations of inbreeding which didn't show in the first inbreeding. Does this sound better. 


> Lastly, the argument that "my dogs are fine" doesn't work, particularly if you're looking at a breed without a long history of inbreeding. Detrimental effects of inbreeding CAN arise quickly (even in a single generation), but it is the ACCUMULATION of effects over several generations that really becomes debilitating. The bottom line is that by promoting the breeding of purebred dogs with closed registries, AKC and others are condemning dogs to the effects of inbreeding in the long run. You might think you're tricking nature, but she's got surprises in store.


My breed has a long history of inbreeding. It also take place prior to registration and shows. The first to be registered were given pit fighting CH not show titles. It's why the UKC was founded. My dogs are not AKC recognized and are not able to be such. UKC reg. is now closed for the breed and imo its a huge disservice. 



jersey_gray said:


> THIS is why the general public such as myself run like hell from show dogs and show breeders. Inbreeding is not healthy or acceptable and you don't need anything more than COMMON SENSE to tell you that. A lack of genetic diversity is very, very bad. As stated, I'm a "regular" dog owner-not a breeder or a geneticist or even involved in the dog show world. Just have always loved animals in general, dogs in particular. Intentionally breeding dogs with a high risk to the puppies of being born severely deformed and/or dead would NOT be acceptable to the public and puts yet another bad mark on the fancy. I don't know a single person who puts any value into AKC papers-several of them have purebreds (myself included actually, I have a Chihuahua). I don't know anyone with a good opinion of the AKC or show dogs. If the AKC and the breeders want respect from us "regular folks" then they need to change the way things are being done. Speaking for the John and Suzy Q's of the country.


LOL really. I understand this thread is about Westminster (show) however you make an assumption that I'm a show breeder and that only show breeders inbreed. Hilarious. 

I like to show dogs, I'm happy if they win, but I don't consider myself a show breeder, I don't focus on breeding just for conformation and show ring. Showing is recreation. I care more about conformation of the dog as it relates to structure then a judges interpretation of a standard. I also care more about temperament, health, drives, I like biddability in my dogs too, the ability to settle is also another trait I want.

Anyway I can show you pedigrees of dogs bred for show, weight pull, fighting, hog hunting or pets which are inbred. Not just show breeders, some of which don't inbred or only to small degrees. 

Dogs were inbred before showing came about. 

Forgive me for not taking your opinion (a regular person) that its not acceptable, not healthy, ect to heart. Whether or not you believe it is healthy won't make my dogs less healthy. Whether or not you find it acceptable won't change the pedigrees of my dogs. 

You are basically speaking on something you have no knowledge or experience on. Which does require more than common sense. 

I don't do or condone such breeding. I'm not sure how this relates to my post, never stated I supported it. You don't need to inbreed to run these risk either. Like in this thread, double merles have a high likelihood of defects. You could breed a merle Catahoula and a merle Dane and produce defective double merles. With widespread polygenic traits you can breed unrelated dogs and produce a severe defect. These things shouldn't intentionally be done. But any time you breed or dogs breed themselves you run the risk of genetic disease. Even in crosses genetic disease happens, at times GASP an F1 cross shows increased severity. 

High risk depends what you consider high. If one wants to do an uncle/niece breeding and the sire's (which is also the dam's grand sire) is a carrier their is just over a 3% chance for a pup to be affected. It's still a chance. 

There are also times in which inbreeding is less of a risk then out crossing for specific diseases. 

I could care less about the AKC. I won't register with them and its of no concern if they have anyone's respect. I also don't need anyone's respect to breed.

Is your Chi healthy? Inbred? Out crossed? Ancestors have genetic issues? 

It also funny how regular people believe inbreeding means you will get deformed dogs. It's not even a guarantee of a defect. Deformed dogs is typically more myth then fact. 

Can you tell an inbred dog by looking? If they have a 0%, 15%, 30%, 60% COI? Will they be crippled, mutants with one eye?


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Spicy1_VV said:


> 9 of out 10
> 
> Some inbreds don't suffer and die.
> 
> You can always find cite the studies you want and use data which supports your idea..


Of course SOME don't suffer and die. MANY don't suffer and die. We are speaking about pushing the odds here. The comment about studies is ignorant.



Spicy1_VV said:


> Continually out crossing will also cause there to be no unrelated dogs. It won't maintain diversity infinitely...


With a large enough population base, when you consider new mutation, it will. In most of our breeds we do not have that, so the best hope is to slow down the drain on diversity.



Spicy1_VV said:


> You are going off topic. Father to daughter being used as a test mating to see if the sire carriers problems. Who suggested that we actually used inbreeding for that? ...


Not off topic at all. It is part of the conversation about inbreeding and linebreeding and consequences. The suggestion is that inbreeding will reveal recessives and therefore help to improve. The numbers presented show the amount of inbreeding needed to be done to do so.



Spicy1_VV said:


> If you are breeding a possible carrier to an affected dogs you stated 17 pups are needed too prove reasonably a dog isn't a carrier. What breeder wants to keep 17 pups especially with late onset disease? Some of which will certainly be carriers and others who might be affected?...


That is exactly what I"m getting at. Who does this? Nobody. Therefore inbreeding does NOT get used to reveal anything. There is just a pretense that it does.



Spicy1_VV said:


> But then you also increase the chance the family of dogs is normal with normal generations...


No you don't. Not if you are NOT inbreeding to the high levels I quoted earlier. You are not increasing the chances of a normal anything.



Spicy1_VV said:


> True. They can still be carriers. But with multiple generations of close inbreeding and a maintained / increased high COI reduces the risk they are carriers. ...


Only of deleterious alleles that are of the single recessive inheritance mode. It increases the chances you will end up dealing with polygenetically inherited difficulties, especialy incompletely dominant ones, and/or late onset ones as those don't show up until many generations of inbreeding later. You are also not addressing the affect this has on the MHC.



Spicy1_VV said:


> There is a reason why some who've been breeding a line for 25, 40yrs or more when a family has been breeding their line passed on fir generations don't want to outcross. It's for fear of bringing something in. Other do cross but minimally....


I know full well.



Spicy1_VV said:


> My breed is pure. APBT. I can out cross to AST or SBT (which you informed me can also have WK) While AST haven't been out crossed to another breed its still diversity to the APBT but then again AST also developed breed specific problems. So crossing to either is a risk.
> 
> The option if this get "messed up big time" would be to scrap the line.


Thank you for clarifying - I think - I have to go look up those acronyms. 



> But to answer your last question SOMETIMES THEY.DO, that or similar. So? Since its been done. What can you say.
> 
> That's how you get dogs with COI of 50, 60, 70, 80%


.

If so where and when and what were the results? If a breeder was doing this successfully (as in without serious problem in some pups) they'd be shouting it from the rooftops, so where are they?



> It also funny how regular people believe inbreeding means you will get deformed dogs. It's not even a guarantee of a defect. Deformed dogs is typically more myth then fact.


You are misinterpreting what 'regular people think'. It is NOT that you WILL get deformed dogs . . . it is that the CHANCES are heightened, and that thought is the truth. You might be O.K. with the heightened chances as you see a pay off. Others are NOT O.K. with it and don't believe the pay off justifies it and have every right to make decisions not to support that and voice those decisions.

I have seen a high COI Cocker litter with cleft palates of which most had to be euthanized. Do not pretend this doesn't happen or pretend it should be taken lightly.

_Cleft lip and palate is thought to be an inherited trait in many breeds, but the exact mode of inheritance is only known in a few breeds. In Brittany Spaniels it is said to be autosomal recessive trait; in Westies it has been shown to be polygenic and does not have a single gene mode of inheritance. In the English and French bulldog, pointer, and Shih Tzu, the trait may be autosomal dominant with incomplete penetrance. In a 2000 survey, Boston terrier breeders reported 15% of their puppies have either a cleft lip or palate. Other breeds affected are cocker spaniel, dachshund, German shepherd, Labrador retriever, miniature schnauzer, and Pekingese._​
http://www.shilohshepherds.info/geneticTaskForce/Cleft_Lip_Palate.htm

So, YES, you CAN tell an inbred dog by LOOKING when things like this occur.

SOB


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

spanielorbust said:


> Of course SOME don't suffer and die. MANY don't suffer and die. We are speaking about pushing the odds here. The comment about studies is ignorant.


Ok



> With a large enough population base, when you consider new mutation, it will. In most of our breeds we do not have that, so the best hope is to slow down the drain on diversity.


I'm not suggesting diversities in BREEDS shouldn't ne maintained. 



> Not off topic at all. It is part of the conversation about inbreeding and linebreeding and consequences. The suggestion is that inbreeding will reveal recessives. The numbers presented show the amount of inbreeding needed to be done to do so.


True but the inbreeding isnt done to be a test mating in itself was my point. I do see yours. 



> That is exactly what I"m getting at. Who does this? Nobody. Therefore inbreeding does NOT get used to reveal anything. There is just a pretence that it does.


How so, I don't see the correlation. Either the pups will be affected or they won't. No matter who owns them, the breeder or otherwise. So it is revealed. I wasn't speaking of inbreeding but of breeding a possible carrier to known carrier. 17 normal pups needed. It doesn't matter who owns them I was saying its done no matter what type of breeding you do. You keep track of pups. 



> No you don't. Not if you are NOT inbreeding to the high levels I quoted earlier. You are not increasing the chances of a normal anything.


Please repeat yourself so I don't have to look back.

I consider a line bred long term 25yrs, 50yrs, 100yrs to be significant. You dont? In those who's COI isn't extremely high?

I also consider dogs with 8 generation COI of 50-70% significant. 

I believe problems should surface you say they won't. But then say breeds are afflicted because of inbreeding. 



> Only of deleterious alleles that are of the single recessive inheritance mode. It increases the chances you will end up dealing with polygenetically inherited difficulties, especialy incompletely dominant ones, and/or late onset ones as those don't show up until many generations of inbreeding later. You are also not addressing the affect this has on the MHC.


It will bring to light more than single recessive. 
As well dogs suffer from polygenic traits so eventually it happens, maybe not in 1 generation but in multiple. 

I haven't felt the need to with lack of immune problems. 



> I know full well.


That's good to know. 



> If so where and when and what were the results? If a breeder was doing this successfully (as in without serious problem in some pups) they'd be shouting it from the rooftops, so where are they?


Why would they? Breeders did it 50yrs ago they do it now. I don't think with the amount of inbreeding thats been done breeders see it a reason to celebrate. Frankly before I got into other breeds I didn't realize the big tadoo with inbreeding.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

> You are misinterpreting what 'regular people think'. It is NOT that you WILL get deformed dogs . . . it is that the chances are heightened, and that thought is the truth. I have seen a high COI Cocker litter with cleft palates of which most had to be euthanized. Do not pretend this doesn't happen or pretend it should be taken lightly.
> 
> _Cleft lip and palate is thought to be an inherited trait in many breeds, but the exact mode of inheritance is only known in a few breeds. In Brittany Spaniels it is said to be autosomal recessive trait; in Westies it has been shown to be polygenic and does not have a single gene mode of inheritance. In the English and French bulldog, pointer, and Shih Tzu, the trait may be autosomal dominant with incomplete penetrance. In a 2000 survey, Boston terrier breeders reported 15% of their puppies have either a cleft lip or palate. Other breeds affected are cocker spaniel, dachshund, German shepherd, Labrador retriever, miniature schnauzer, and Pekingese._​
> http://www.shilohshepherds.info/geneticTaskForce/Cleft_Lip_Palate.htm
> ...


I'm not misinterpretating.

Why would I pretend it doesn't happen?? Wow

The worse case I've seen was 7 out of 10 pups with clefts in a litter. This was an out cross from out cross parents loosely bred. 

So no you can't tell if a dog has a hi COI by looking. You can tell if it has a deformity which can occur in any type of breeding. 

I'm betting if I post pics the poster cant tell which dogs are inbred. I'm sure if I posted a dog with physical deformity people would assume its inbred.

You do realize cleft and physical deformities can occur in mixes right?


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

Wow, such brilliant posts from spanielorbust, sassafras, gottaluvmutts, willowy, and others! I haven't been on this forum in a really long time, but happened to come here just in time to find this awesome thread. It's been a huge pleasure to read.

Just to point out one really basic thing (to spicy especially) that I think perhaps hasn't quite sunken in, but that other people have said: there are no totally genetically healthy (free from all recessive problems) individuals. There's no such thing. It's hopelessly naive to think that if you start with outwardly "healthy" dogs, inbreeding is safe. The whole point is that all dogs have bad genetic stuff that will, inevitably, come to the surface if they're inbred. Each generation just increases the odds. "Outcrossing" keeps recessive traits recessive, where they belong.

Like spanielorbust said,



> Some are relatively healthier than others and that can buy some time, but here is no such thing as starting with 'healthy' animals. No one can know and every animal holds numerous deleterious alleles.


About the intentional MM breedings and everything else... everything has already been said, and with such eloquence! No ambition or rational justifies something so basically and obviously morally abhorrent as intentionally breeding puppies with serious birth defects.

ETA: This post was written after reading this thread and the culling thread, which deal with a lot of the same themes, so I may be mixing them together a bit in my posts.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

begemot said:


> Wow, such brilliant posts from spanielorbust, sassafras, gottaluvmutts, willowy, and others! I haven't been on this forum in a really long time, but happened to come here just in time to find this awesome thread. It's been a huge pleasure to read.
> 
> Just to point out one really basic thing (to spicy especially) that I think perhaps hasn't quite sunken in, but that other people have said: there are no totally genetically healthy (free from all recessive problems) individuals. There's no such thing. It's hopelessly naive to think that if you start with outwardly "healthy" dogs, inbreeding is safe. The whole point is that all dogs have bad genetic stuff that will, inevitably, come to the surface if they're inbred. Each generation just increases the odds. "Outcrossing" keeps recessive traits recessive, where they belong.
> 
> ...


Which everyone here agrees on.

Why do people keep blowing things out of proportion? No one said they agree with breeding birth defects. No one. Find me a quote where someone has said that.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Spicy1_VV said:


> I'm not misinterpretating.
> 
> Why would I pretend it doesn't happen?? Wow


You were VERY dismissive with the concerns stated by jersey_gray in the post that I was responding to. How is that to be perceived?



Spicy1_VV said:


> The worse case I've seen was 7 out of 10 pups with clefts in a litter. This was an out cross from out cross parents loosely bred.
> 
> So no you can't tell if a dog has a hi COI by looking. You can tell if it has a deformity which can occur in any type of breeding.
> 
> ...


We are speaking of risks here and what each one of us finds acceptable. Do you believe the risks of deformity are increased with inbreeding or not?



AussieNerdQueen said:


> Which everyone here agrees on.
> 
> Why do people keep blowing things out of proportion? No one said they agree with breeding birth defects. No one. Find me a quote where someone has said that.


Those doing MM breedings have been defended on this thread. Did you not read that? MM causes a high risk of birth defect. 

So how can you say, at the same time that MM pairings are being excused on this thread, that people are NOT agreeing with breeding for a high risk of birth defect?

SOB


----------



## ChaosIsAWeim (Feb 12, 2011)

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Which everyone here agrees on.
> 
> Why do people keep blowing things out of proportion? No one said they agree with breeding birth defects. No one. Find me a quote where someone has said that.


I have kept up with this thread, and I agree, either I am missing something or text is being taken out of context, cause I am not seeing anyone agree that merlexmerle breedings is ok to do. I specifically said its not, I just would rather see the blame put where it needs to be (i.e the breeder not WKC)

I see people defending line breeding, but no merle to merle. Two separate issues.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

ChaosIsAWeim said:


> I have kept up with this thread, and I agree, either I am missing something or text is being taken out of context, cause I am not seeing anyone agree that merlexmerle breedings is ok to do. I specifically said its not, I just would rather see the blame put where it needs to be (i.e the breeder not WKC)
> 
> I see people defending line breeding, but no merle to merle. Two separate issues.


Page 5 and 6, starting here. How do you read these and the posts following?



Pawzk9 said:


> I don't know that I would call this "shady practices." Certainly it is a controversial practice, that many people disagree with (with reason). But I don't see the breeders trying to hide anything here. I also think that some people put too much emphasis on breed ring wins. Because they aren't about health clearances, or working ability, or bloodlines. They are about the dog there - and what he does on that particular day. There are a lot more things than conformation wins to look at when considering breeding stock. *I know in my breed, many of the "golden crosses" were merle to merle. *(Though I only can think of one MM -uneffected in vision or hearing - who was influential - she's behind my girls, numerous Working Trial Champions and Hall of Famers. The only female to ever win Supreme Working Trial Champion (I believe there have only been 4 in the history of the breed) was from a merle to merle cross. *I'm not sure the breed would be the better for not having these dogs*.





Pawzk9 said:


> I find this odd coming from someone with a breed where a genetic abnormality (which is also related to tooth loss at an early age) is highly prized. I guess it is different strokes for different folks. And maybe we tend to look at other people's problems without looking that closely in our own back yard. I suppose I have a person investment in that many of the good dogs I've owned through the years have ancestors who were a result of merle to merle breeding (and the current girls have a great great grandparent who WAS a MM (though, coming from a non-flashy line, has only a little more than acceptable white and no hearing or vision deficiencies).* I'm not sure that it is irresponsible breeding, but do think it is something that needs to be carefully weighed, and done by people who recognize the risks involved. And won't put affected puppies out with people who aren't equipped to deal with those deficiencies.* I don't actually know anyone in Aussies who keeps a MM dog for the purpose of producing merles (but color is just not that big a deal in Aussies, and there's no shortage of merles). I expect that merle to merle crosses will become less common due to public pressure and AR. I'm not sure that's totally in the best interest of the breed.


SOB


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> Page 5 and 6, starting here. How do you read these and the posts following?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't read it as being in favor of the practice. I read it is that it has happened, and the breed seems no worse because of it. And that if it is done, the breeder that does it, should be aware and prepared for the risks involved. It is non committal at best. 


This thread started as a sensationalized attack on purebred dogs, registering bodies, kennel clubs and breeders. All over the breeding practices of ONE breeder. Many here took that as an opportunity to bash breeders, the AKC, and Westminster. 

The fact is.... The Government cannot control, legislate, or force people into being personally responsible. Why anyone thinks a canine registering body or kennel club could is beyond me. 

In any case, some think the AKC should be responsible for things like this. But the fact is, you do not want a few folks in North Carolina and New York, making decisions on breeding practices. Any rules and regulations dealing with breeding practices should be handled by the national breed clubs. This should probably happen in all breeds capable of producing merle dogs. IF the breed club votes in not registering puppies of a merle to merle breeding, the AKC will honor it. 

Whether or not that happens is another matter. In any case the breeder that did this is taken a beating in the dog community. I don't know what their reputation was prior to this, but it is not good now. They will take their lumps in their breed. 

Now the issue of linebreeding, inbreeding etc..... As someone else mentioned, most of the genetic issues in most breeds are there because of a Founders Effect. The issues have been in the breed forever. There is no advantage in doing total outcrosses. In fact, it can be a HUGE roll of the dice. The dogs of a specific breed in the US have the same genetic issues as the dogs of the same breed in Europe, Australia, etc. If you have a good healthy line going and producing nice dogs, there is nothing wrong with continuing to line breed and even an occasional inbred breeding, AS LONG AS you are doing outcrosses. A total outcross. Breeding two completely unrelated dogs, can be a crap shoot. You might bring some really good stuff into your line. But you might bring some bad stuff as well.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I don't read it as being in favor of the practice. I read it is that it has happened, and the breed seems no worse because of it. And that if it is done, the breeder that does it, should be aware and prepared for the risks involved. It is non committal at best. .


I didn't suggest it was 'in favor' of the practice. It does say that it is not necessarily irresponsible breeding . . . that is far from non-commital and by the responses following I KNOW I am not the only one that read it that way.



JohnnyBandit said:


> This thread started as a sensationalized attack on purebred dogs, registering bodies, kennel clubs and breeders. All over the breeding practices of ONE breeder. Many here took that as an opportunity to bash breeders, the AKC, and Westminster.
> 
> The fact is.... The Government cannot control, legislate, or force people into being personally responsible. Why anyone thinks a canine registering body or kennel club could is beyond me. .


Other breed clubs and registries do so . . . . what's up with that?



JohnnyBandit said:


> In any case, some think the AKC should be responsible for things like this. But the fact is, you do not want a few folks in North Carolina and New York, making decisions on breeding practices. Any rules and regulations dealing with breeding practices should be handled by the national breed clubs. This should probably happen in all breeds capable of producing merle dogs. IF the breed club votes in not registering puppies of a merle to merle breeding, the AKC will honor it. .


I agree whole heartedly. I would HOPE the breed clubs would take care of it.



JohnnyBandit said:


> Whether or not that happens is another matter. In any case the breeder that did this is taken a beating in the dog community. I don't know what their reputation was prior to this, but it is not good now. They will take their lumps in their breed..


I understand that their double merle stud is a prominant in the breed - number one. I think they can handle the flack, as they should. - http://usacollies.com/wyndlair.html



JohnnyBandit said:


> Now the issue of linebreeding, inbreeding etc..... As someone else mentioned, most of the genetic issues in most breeds are there because of a Founders Effect. The issues have been in the breed forever. There is no advantage in doing total outcrosses. In fact, it can be a HUGE roll of the dice. The dogs of a specific breed in the US have the same genetic issues as the dogs of the same breed in Europe, Australia, etc. If you have a good healthy line going and producing nice dogs, there is nothing wrong with continuing to line breed and even an occasional inbred breeding, AS LONG AS you are doing outcrosses. A total outcross. Breeding two completely unrelated dogs, can be a crap shoot. You might bring some really good stuff into your line. But you might bring some bad stuff as well.


I understand, fully, the nuances of breeding for type, and the touted advantages and disadvantages of different breeding practices. I come off of years of study of the Cocker AND the Cavalier breeds, including mentorship through two periods of my life. 

Is anyone suggesting here to do total outcrosses (out of breed) in most dog breeds? I DO advocate assortative mating within breeds and will continue to. That is the mating of dogs with like qualities and type but as unrelated as possible. It is a proven breeding method that retains diversity in breeds. Hopefully we can have them healthier and longer that way. I've already written off two because breeders won't watch what they are doing.

http://www.seppalakennels.com/articles/population-genetics-in-practice.htm

http://www.canine-genetics.com/Inbreeding1.pdf

http://www.canine-genetics.com/Inbreeding2.pdf

The suggestion is also to recognize and understand what you are up against in your breed instead of being dismissive of the risks. Many are dismissive of the risks of continued linebreeding and the impact that can have when their dogs go back into the breed. Take steps to preserve the diversity that you have as carefully as you can and BE HONEST with the people that you sell dogs to, including other breeders. 

Whenever this is proposed, however, the perception seems to be that if you advise caution and recognition of the risks then you must be one of those that wants everyone to produce pariah dogs. 

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I don't read it as being in favor of the practice. I read it is that it has happened, and the breed seems no worse because of it. And that if it is done, the breeder that does it, should be aware and prepared for the risks involved. It is non committal at best.
> 
> 
> This thread started as a sensationalized attack on purebred dogs, registering bodies, kennel clubs and breeders. All over the breeding practices of ONE breeder. Many here took that as an opportunity to bash breeders, the AKC, and Westminster.
> ...


Sure am glad there are some people here who can read.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> Page 5 and 6, starting here. How do you read these and the posts following?
> 
> SOB


Orrrr, if you weren't working so hard for spin, you could have bolded it this way:


(Quote from me)
I don't know that I would call this "shady practices". *Certainly it is a controversial practice, that many people disagree with (with reason). But I don't see the breeders trying to hide anything here. I also think that some people put too much emphasis on breed ring wins. Because they aren't about health clearances, or working ability, or bloodlines. They are about the dog there - and what he does on that particular day. There are a lot more things than conformation wins to look at when considering breeding stock.* I know in my breed, many of the "golden crosses" were merle to merle. (Though I only can think of one MM -uneffected in vision or hearing - who was influential - she's behind my girls, numerous Working Trial Champions and Hall of Famers. The only female to ever win Supreme Working Trial Champion (I believe there have only been 4 in the history of the breed) was from a merle to merle cross. I'm not sure the breed would be the better for not having these dogs.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> Orrrr, if you weren't working so hard for spin, you could have bolded it this way:
> 
> 
> (Quote from me)
> I don't know that I would call this "shady practices". *Certainly it is a controversial practice, that many people disagree with (with reason). But I don't see the breeders trying to hide anything here. I also think that some people put too much emphasis on breed ring wins. Because they aren't about health clearances, or working ability, or bloodlines. They are about the dog there - and what he does on that particular day. There are a lot more things than conformation wins to look at when considering breeding stock.* I know in my breed, many of the "golden crosses" were merle to merle. (Though I only can think of one MM -uneffected in vision or hearing - who was influential - she's behind my girls, numerous Working Trial Champions and Hall of Famers. The only female to ever win Supreme Working Trial Champion (I believe there have only been 4 in the history of the breed) was from a merle to merle cross. I'm not sure the breed would be the better for not having these dogs.


That's how I read your post too.

Usually I'm all for discussion about breeding but JohnnyBandit is right, this does just come across as a chance to abuse breeders.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

spanielorbust said:


> You were VERY dismissive with the concerns stated by jersey_gray in the post that I was responding to. How is that to be perceived?


I wasn't intending to be dismissive of concerns, but rather of opinion. I will admit I'm dismissive of their opinion on inbreeding and breeding practices in general. It's of no concern to me, though I understand they have the right to express it. 

When in comes to the opinion of my peers, breeders, old timers, vets, geneticist, ect I will respect their opinion and be concerned with it, even if I don't agree with it and if I do agree I will take it to heart. Not to mention I also take into consideration what I don't agree with and might change my view if its from such a person. 

Since you and myself don't agree you also might not realize I pay attention to a lot of what you say because you appear to be more than an uneducated yahoo. 

Your comment I felt was an insult to my intelligence and integrity. No I'm not broken up about it but it was unnecessary. 

I won't pretend they don't happen in inbreeding. Not will I pretend they don't appear in out crosses and cross breds. 



> We are speaking of risks here and what each one of us finds acceptable. Do you believe the risks of deformity are increased with inbreeding or not?


I think it depends. I understand risk but if you are breeding long term without deformities it isn't high risk. Secondly the fact is environment can cause birth defects. Not all physical deformities are caused by genetics. You mentioned humans in a previous post, they are not breeding closely (generally) yet babies are born with defects deformed limbs, clefts, abnormalities of internal organs, organs on the outside of their body, completely missing limbs or body parts. 

I've not observed deformities at a higher frequency in inbred dogs. However I'm not privy to every litter breeders produce. Therefore I can only account for those I know of. Some people bury the dog and forget about, others don't wish to conceal it but don't walk around telking every breeder hey I produced a deformed pup. Though breeders can be open if you get on the subject.

I've observed issues in a couple of lines like skull going towards brachy type and having bowed legs and front end. problem Another which has produce severe carpal luxation and dogs which appear achondroplastic. Sad thing is it doesn't stop continued breeding of such dogs. 

While inbreeding has been common practice deformities are not common. Though oddly they appear more common in fairly young breed American Bully. Some close breedings have been done but not as much, the gene pool is more limited with only a few lines BUT people are still breeding to APBT and AST lines to and this breed was developed from crossing breeds. 

There is also the fact that there are healthy inbred dogs. One I've already mentioned. You said breeders should be shouting from the rooftops - well it is well known that the OFRN strain is highly inbred as it has been. 



> Many are dismissive of the risks of continued linebreeding and the impact that can have when their dogs go back into the breed.
> 
> Take steps to preserve the diversity that you have as carefully as you can and BE HONEST with the people that you sell dogs to, including other breeders.


There are risks but it might not be equal from one breed or breeding to the next. One should acknowledge risk of any proposed mating. 

Again some breeders are fearful of introducing a new line into theirs and others the line has worked thus far. Can you really blame some for it not sticking that inbreeding is a huge (or larger) risk with 50 or 100yr old lines? 

I do understand your point on dogs being introduced back to the population. I will say for a few they do at least keep their highly inbred stuff as private stock, even if they do offer dogs to others it from much less inbred stock (very loose line breeding and crossing with other lines). Not everyone who does close matings is doing this by far. 

If close breeding doesn't quickly bring out polygenic traits when should one expect the cards to fall?

I do find genetic diversity for the population important. 

I also completely agree with HONESTY and I also feel follow up or keeping up with what you produce is important. I'm really certain breeders who've produced 100s of pups and owned popular sires are not doing this.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

begemot said:


> Just to point out one really basic thing (to spicy especially) that I think perhaps hasn't quite sunken in, but that other people have said: there are no totally genetically healthy (free from all recessive problems) individuals. There's no such thing. It's hopelessly naive to think that if you start with outwardly "healthy" dogs, inbreeding is safe. The whole point is that all dogs have bad genetic stuff that will, inevitably, come to the surface if they're inbred. Each generation just increases the odds. "Outcrossing" keeps recessive traits recessive, where they belong.


I'm aware of this fact (well BEFORE this discussion) so I'm not quite sure how it hasn't "sunken in". 

It is naive to think that crossing will always keep recessive defects "where they belong" when they are produced in cross breeds. 

You could say the risk is less but that's about it.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

You guys are being disingenuous. While nobody may have come out and said "MM breedings are awesome!" there are many quotes that are implicitly condoning them. For instance, Pawzk wrote: "I expect that merle to merle crosses will become less common due to public pressure and AR. I'm not sure that's totally in the best interest of the breed." By obvious inference, Pawzk believes that MM breedings may be the "best interest of the breed." Pawzk is not the only person in this thread who has acted as an apologist for MM breedings.

Regardless of whether you agree with the above, I'm allowed to say I think MM breeding is unethical, AussieNerdQueen.

Spicy, no one is saying that birth defects can't occur because of environmental factors, or in unrelated breedings. The point is that inbreeding_ increases the risk_ of genetic problems -- and not necessarily immediately apparent problems like birth defects -- not creates that risk. And the risk is positively correlated to the inbreeding coefficient. (ETA: sorry that last post had a condescending tone, spicy.)

And Pawzk, do you know what _argumentum ad hominem_ means? It's a logical fallacy where the author avoids responding directly to the arguments of an opponent, instead relying on a mischaracterization of the opponent's character -- ie, as "AR" despite the lack of any evidence of an association by spanielorbust and others -- to distract from the issues.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> I didn't suggest it was 'in favor' of the practice. It does say that it is not necessarily irresponsible breeding . . . that is far from non-commital and by the responses following I KNOW I am not the only one that read it that way.


What you did is pull one piece out of a larger statement to support your statements. Nothing more. You are spinning this more than a little bit.



spanielorbust said:


> Other breed clubs and registries do so . . . . what's up with that?


Some breed clubs and registering bodies do attempt to regulate things such as this.... But at the end of the day, rules and regs are only as strong as the integrity of those being regulated. 




spanielorbust said:


> I understand, fully, the nuances of breeding for type, and the touted advantages and disadvantages of different breeding practices. I come off of years of study of the Cocker AND the Cavalier breeds, including mentorship through two periods of my life.
> 
> Is anyone suggesting here to do total outcrosses (out of breed) in most dog breeds? I DO advocate assortative mating within breeds and will continue to. That is the mating of dogs with like qualities and type but as unrelated as possible. It is a proven breeding method that retains diversity in breeds. Hopefully we can have them healthier and longer that way. I've already written off two because breeders won't watch what they are doing.
> 
> ...


I did not call your personal experiences or credentials into question. Nor did I ask for them. I will say that if you have studied cockers and CKCs for years you should have a good idea of exactly not what to do in breeding dogs. Both breeds could be poster children for breeding gone wrong.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

begemot said:


> You guys are being disingenuous. While nobody may have come out and said "MM breedings are awesome!" there are many quotes that are implicitly condoning them. For instance, Pawzk wrote: *"I expect that merle to merle crosses will become less common due to public pressure and AR. *I'm not sure that's totally in the best interest of the breed." By obvious inference, Pawzk believes that MM breedings may be the "best interest of the breed." Pawzk is not the only person in this thread who has acted as an apologist for MM breedings.
> .



Actually.... I see this as you and SOB trying to spin things and put words in people's mouths. The way I read the statement in bold is that it is not a good thing for breeders to change their practices or direction because of public pressure and the AR.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

JohnnyBandit said:


> Actually.... I see this as you and SOB trying to spin things and put words in people's mouths. The way I read the statement in bold is that it is not a good thing for breeders to change their practices or direction because of public pressure and the AR.


How is it spin? It's totally factual. The quote in question clearly states that Pawzk thinks MM crosses becoming less common may not in the best interests of the breed.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Begemot I understand ya


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

begemot said:


> How is it spin? It's totally factual. The quote in question clearly states that Pawzk thinks MM crosses becoming less common may not in the best interests of the breed.



No its a spin......



begemot said:


> Wow, such brilliant posts from spanielorbust, sassafras, gottaluvmutts, willowy, and others! I haven't been on this forum in a really long time, but happened to come here just in time to find this awesome thread. *It's been a huge pleasure to read.*
> Just to point out one really basic thing (to spicy especially) that I think perhaps hasn't quite sunken in, but that other people have said: there are no totally genetically healthy (free from all recessive problems) individuals. There's no such thing. It's hopelessly naive to think that if you start with outwardly "healthy" dogs, inbreeding is safe. The whole point is that all dogs have bad genetic stuff that will, inevitably, come to the surface if they're inbred. Each generation just increases the odds. "Outcrossing" keeps recessive traits recessive, where they belong.
> 
> Like spanielorbust said,
> ...


You read the thread. Early on, Pawz made a clear statement. 


Pawzk9 said:


> Wrong. *The dam of the dog who won at Westminster is a black tri. Not condoning the practice, but the reason for using a homozygous merle is that if you breed to a solid colored dog, you can get all merles* (if that's important, for some reason) It would make no sense to breed two homozygous merles together, as I don't know anyone who is looking to intentionally breed mismarks. What is possibly most amazing about this whole thing is the misinformation and conclusions that people are jumping to. Much of what has been posted on this thread is just flat misinformation. And not even misinformation from the anti-AKC article. People seem to be making it up as they go, and not even checking facts, when the dogs in question are readily pictured in a number of places.


That she is not condoning the practice of intentionally trying to produce merles. 



And since you read the thread, you saw at least several references Pawz made to AR and public pressure affecting breeding practices....

And still you say Pawz is speaking in favor of the practice.....

But if you read the entire post....

QUOTE=Pawzk9;1139162]I find this odd coming from someone with a breed where a genetic abnormality (which is also related to tooth loss at an early age) is highly prized. I guess it is different strokes for different folks. And maybe we tend to look at other people's problems without looking that closely in our own back yard. I suppose I have a person investment in that many of the good dogs I've owned through the years have ancestors who were a result of merle to merle breeding (and the current girls have a great great grandparent who WAS a MM (though, coming from a non-flashy line, has only a little more than acceptable white and no hearing or vision deficiencies). I'm not sure that it is irresponsible breeding, but do think it is something that needs to be carefully weighed, and done by people who recognize the risks involved. And won't put affected puppies out with people who aren't equipped to deal with those deficiencies. I don't actually know anyone in Aussies who keeps a MM dog for the purpose of producing merles (but color is just not that big a deal in Aussies, and there's no shortage of merles). I expect that merle to merle crosses will become less common due to public pressure and AR. I'm not sure that's totally in the best interest of the breed.[/QUOTE]

This is at least the third time she has brought up a MM dog that is behind some of the dogs she has owned. And at one point she pointed out some pretty amazing achievements of that MM dog. Hence her statement about if that breeding had not taken place the breed not being better off. I do not know the dog but she seems convinced the dog brought some great things to the breed. 
And the statement again.... The entire statement reads........
QUOTE=Pawzk9;1139162] I expect that merle to merle crosses will become less common due to public pressure and AR. I'm not sure that's totally in the best interest of the breed.[/QUOTE]

That is a statement on breeders changing breeding practices due to public pressure and the AR. 

If that ever happens I am going to give up dogs and start playing golf....


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Oddly enough the BOB sheltie in 2010 also had a double merle sire. I don't remember hearing anything about that one.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

begemot said:


> And Pawzk, do you know what _argumentum ad hominem_ means? It's a logical fallacy where the author avoids responding directly to the arguments of an opponent, instead relying on a mischaracterization of the opponent's character -- ie, as "AR" despite the lack of any evidence of an association by spanielorbust and others -- to distract from the issues.


Huh. I'm impressed that you also keep the list of fallacious arguments in your favorites. It always sounds impressive when one uses Latin. However, I'd love for you to show me where I've suggested anyone here is AR on this thread. Thanks! I do think that AR and anti kennel club factions are responsible for making the breed win of a single dog into such a tempest in a teapot. But I didn't suggest that anyone here was guilty of anything more than buying into the hysteria.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

begemot said:


> How is it spin? It's totally factual. The quote in question clearly states that Pawzk thinks MM crosses becoming less common may not in the best interests of the breed.


I can look at the dogs who were major positive influence on the breed who were bred merle to merle (not MM) crosses. Would they have been as good if they'd been bred merle to a less compatible but solid colored dog? Can't really say. Because they weren't. I can only look at the dogs who existed. And I've been in the breed long enough to know that in the beginning it was routinely done. So, shoot me for stating facts.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen (Jul 28, 2010)

begemot said:


> You guys are being disingenuous. While nobody may have come out and said "MM breedings are awesome!" there are many quotes that are implicitly condoning them. For instance, Pawzk wrote: "I expect that merle to merle crosses will become less common due to public pressure and AR. I'm not sure that's totally in the best interest of the breed." By obvious inference, Pawzk believes that MM breedings may be the "best interest of the breed." Pawzk is not the only person in this thread who has acted as an apologist for MM breedings.
> 
> *Regardless of whether you agree with the above, I'm allowed to say I think MM breeding is unethical, AussieNerdQueen.*
> 
> ...


Read the thread, I clearly stated on numerous occasions MxM is not okay, so please do get off of your high horse until you've read the thread.


----------



## Rescued (Jan 8, 2012)

Okay I'm just sort of jumping in and am also finding this fascinating. Genetics aside, how many of the blind/deaf/both puppies produced as a result of MxM breedings then went on to become foundations of the breed and lines. Whether or not its ethical to do these breedings is a different argument- I'm wondering how many breeders would choose to breed to a btch or dog that was obviously deaf/blind or both.

And if they are commonly interspersed throughout the solid lines, was there any point in time when MxM could be shown in conformation? Or by using one of the affected dogs in their breeding program, is the breeder essentially breeding from an untitled dog.

All of the above is in reference to conformation, not working titles.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Rescued said:


> Okay I'm just sort of jumping in and am also finding this fascinating. Genetics aside, how many of the blind/deaf/both puppies produced as a result of MxM breedings then went on to become foundations of the breed and lines. Whether or not its ethical to do these breedings is a different argument- I'm wondering how many breeders would choose to breed to a btch or dog that was obviously deaf/blind or both.
> 
> And if they are commonly interspersed throughout the solid lines, was there any point in time when MxM could be shown in conformation? Or by using one of the affected dogs in their breeding program, is the breeder essentially breeding from an untitled dog.
> 
> All of the above is in reference to conformation, not working titles.


In my breed, I don't know of any blind/deaf dogs who were used in breeding programs. I know of at least one seeing/hearing homozygous who was,and produced some of the most exceptional dogs in the working end of the breed.. Heterozygous dogs from MxM crosses may be shown. I don't know of any homozygous merles who are shown, but in a line where there is very little white trim, a homozygous merle might just appear "flashy" and could be shown. Such a dog would possibly had normal hearing and vision, since those issues are linked to pigment distribution.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Not exactly new, but I think this open letter from a vet does have some bearing on this thread
Veterinarian Speaks Out on PETA and Westminister
by Libbye Miller; DVM



“Adorable mixed breeds” get cancer, epilepsy, allergies, heart disease, and orthopedic problems just like purebreds. I see it every day in my veterinary practice but mixed breed dogs aren’t tracked like the purebreds so they have a reputation as “healthier” that is actually undeserved in many cases. “ It is so sad that a lot of folks, including young veterinarians these days, buy into the “hybrid vigor” baloney. The vet schools have been infiltrated by the Animal Rights Extremists, who are teaching them this junk science in order to push their agenda. All animals have a certain amount of genetic load, which is to say there is absolutely no animal without some genetic problem of some sort of another.

Know anyone who wears glasses? 
Has allergies? Thyroid problems? 
Weak knees? 
Flat feet? 
A skin condition? 
Arthritis? 
A gap between their front teeth?
These are all genetic imperfections. No human is genetically “clean.” Neither is any individual of any species on earth. So this idea that dogs should not be bred because they might have a genetic problem, and that breeders are somehow “evil” for breeding them, is ridiculous. Every single individual of every single species has at least a few genetic conditions. To use PeTA’s logic, all breeding of all kinds (including having human babies) should halt immediately. And to be honest, Ingrid Newkirk (the woman who founded PeTA) does believe exactly that. She thinks that humans should become extinct, along with dogs, cats, etc. This ridiculous scenario is precisely what she would like to see happen. So folks, if that is what you want...if you agree with Ingrid Newkirk’s whacky views, send your hard earned money to PeTA. They will help to ensure you are not able to own a dog or cat or hamster or any other pet in the future. They will see to it that you can’t eat meat or fish or eggs or any type of animal-based nutrition. They will work to shut down places like Sea World, the zoos, etc. so you cannot observe the many wonderful animals on the Earth. Eventually, once they accomplish these things, they may turn their efforts to making it illegal for humans to procreate. If you don’t agree with their extremist views, wise up and start supporting those who truly do love, care for and enjoy interaction with other species here on our little blue planet. The fanciers of the breeds, those you see exhibiting their dogs at Westminster and other dog shows, work very hard to eliminate serious genetic conditions. They screen their breeding stock with every available test. They research pedigrees before breeding into other lines, to check for similar clearances in those animals. They contribute money to research organizations to further the work being done to track down genetic problems. They contribute blood, cell samples, etc. from their own animals to help with DNA and genome studies. They have made great progress so far, and they continue to work hard at it.

Are there unethical breeders? Certainly, there are. Just as in any group of humans, you will find the good and the bad. United States VP Elect Joe Biden, for example, managed to find a not so good one when he got his new German Shepherd puppy. I don’t know who did his research for him, but they obviously didn’t do their homework if they were looking for a responsible breeder. Joe has the right to get his dog from whomever he wishes, but if he was trying to set an example of purchasing from a responsible hobby breeder he went off the track this time. That’s too bad, but it was his choice. Unfortunately, breeders like that may be a lot easier to find because of their high volume and high profile. If you are looking for a nice family pet from a breeder who will be there for you forever, you need to do due diligence. You won’t get that from a pet store. You won’t get that from the guy selling dogs out of his pickup truck in the WalMart parking lot. You won’t get that support from a high-volume breeder, either. Yes, it takes a little more time and effort to find someone who really cares and does all the work to breed the healthiest, happiest puppies possible and then stands behind those puppies. This is a living being that will be part of your family, hopefully, for many years. Isn’t it worth a bit of effort to find a breeder who will be there for you and that puppy forever? And guess what? Shows like Westminster are a very valuable resource for finding breeders who do care and who use the best possible practices, as well as for learning more about the various breeds. Bravo to USA Network for broadcasting the Westminster Kennel Club show all these years. May they enjoy continued success through the ongoing inclusion of such programs. I will be eagerly watching this year’s show!”

Reprinted with author’s permission


----------



## +two (Jul 12, 2011)

spanielorbust said:


> This provides even more amusement.
> 
> _"*USAcollies.com* are proud to present an interview with one of the most respected names in the collie world, both as a breeder, handler and more recently as a judge. Matthew Stelter of Wyndlair Collies shares his experiences and insight with our readers."
> 
> ...


Thank you for posting this, SOB. 

I think this is my biggest concern from this whole story. I have a good feel, I think, for how much people actually research and educate themselves before getting a dog, and IMO, most don't do enough. The few who actually put in effort will read the breed clubs website. 

It is sad, and disheartening that someone who was looking for a Collie would find this information plastered everywhere, and would take it as truth because well, the governing body of Collie breeders says so. Not many would suspect that a national collie club would be posting fallacious information. Can we really fault the average puppy buyer for seeking out Avalanche's progeny?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

+two said:


> . Not many would suspect that a national collie club would be posting fallacious information. Can we really fault the average puppy buyer for seeking out Avalanche's progeny?


What "fallacious" information did the collie club post? It is apparently true that he is successful and well-respected in his breed, despite the fact that many would disagree with his use of Avalanche.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

He is, very much so. I know who the breeder is, and have met him.

I saw him go BIS with a Collie of his 5 or 6 years ago (it was a sable).


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> Huh. I'm impressed that you also keep the list of fallacious arguments in your favorites. It always sounds impressive when one uses Latin. However, I'd love for you to show me where I've suggested anyone here is AR on this thread. Thanks! I do think that AR and anti kennel club factions are responsible for making the breed win of a single dog into such a tempest in a teapot. But I didn't suggest that anyone here was guilty of anything more than buying into the hysteria.


If the dog fancy keeps just dismissing things like this as AR "hysteria," the dog fancy will lose the argument with the public. The true AR groups will make sure of it, and the AKC and its breed clubs will only have themselves to blame. 

I personally have no problem with good breeders, I just don't happen to put breeders of merle x merle in the "good breeder" category, I don't really care how "respected" they are. I think it is unethical to knowingly produce a litter that is very likely to have some with severe physical impairments. Thus, I also think it is a shame they are using a disabled dog born from a merle x merle breeding as a stud dog.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

brandiw said:


> If the dog fancy keeps just dismissing things like this as AR "hysteria," the dog fancy will lose the argument with the public. The true AR groups will make sure of it, and the AKC and its breed clubs will only have themselves to blame.
> 
> .


The article at the start of this thread was certainly hysteria, as well as the entire website.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Rescued said:


> Okay I'm just sort of jumping in and am also finding this fascinating. Genetics aside, how many of the blind/deaf/both puppies produced as a result of MxM breedings then went on to become foundations of the breed and lines. Whether or not its ethical to do these breedings is a different argument- I'm wondering how many breeders would choose to breed to a btch or dog that was obviously deaf/blind or both.
> 
> And if they are commonly interspersed throughout the solid lines, was there any point in time when MxM could be shown in conformation? Or by using one of the affected dogs in their breeding program, is the breeder essentially breeding from an untitled dog.
> 
> All of the above is in reference to conformation, not working titles.


I know of several double merle sheltie studs that are mostly (almost completely) white. I don't know for sure how well they hear or see, but have heard a few times that one is at least partially deaf/blind. I don't know about all breed registries but shelties in the AKC can't have more than 50% white.



> Specimens with more than 50 percent white shall be so severely penalized as to effectively eliminate them from competition.


So most double merles would not be allowed because they have too much white. Also though that DQ's color headed white dogs too. The UKC is more lenient about white shelties and they just disallow dogs without color over most their heads. I can see that they are trying to allow CHWs but DQ double merles however it's pretty tricky to write since both can have a lot of white on them.



Pawzk9 said:


> The article at the start of this thread was certainly hysteria, as well as the entire website.


He was a member of DF for a short time, actually.


----------



## begemot (Feb 1, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> “Adorable mixed breeds” get cancer, epilepsy, allergies, heart disease, and orthopedic problems just like purebreds... These are all genetic imperfections. No human is genetically “clean.” Neither is any individual of any species on earth. So this idea that dogs should not be bred because they might have a genetic problem, and that breeders are somehow “evil” for breeding them, is ridiculous. Every single individual of every single species has at least a few genetic conditions.


To whom is this post directed? The people you're arguing with have specifically said, in just the last pages of this thread, that no dogs are genetically "clean" -- that's the point. Inbreeding doubles up problematic genes, causing problems.

This is an example of using a "straw man" argument. That's another logical fallacy.



> To use PeTA’s logic, all breeding of all kinds (including having human babies) should halt immediately. And to be honest, Ingrid Newkirk (the woman who founded PeTA) does believe exactly that. She thinks that humans should become extinct, along with dogs, cats, etc. This ridiculous scenario is precisely what she would like to see happen. So folks, if that is what you want...if you agree with Ingrid Newkirk’s whacky views, send your hard earned money to PeTA. They will help to ensure you are not able to own a dog or cat or hamster or any other pet in the future. They will see to it that you can’t eat meat or fish or eggs or any type of animal-based nutrition. They will work to shut down places like Sea World, the zoos, etc. so you cannot observe the many wonderful animals on the Earth. Eventually, once they accomplish these things, they may turn their efforts to making it illegal for humans to procreate...


Wow, it's like you're actually bending over backwards to substantiate the point that I made in my last post.

No one here is pro-peta that I've seen. No one here is arguing against pet ownership, meat-eating, zoos, or, um, babies. What do those topics have to do with a discussion about MM breeding, and other unethical breeding practices? Or do you just copy and paste this into every thread about ethics?

Or is it, in fact, an attempt to discredit the people here who have valid concerns about MM breedings and other ethical issues, by spuriously linking them to peta and extremism?



+two said:


> I think this is my biggest concern from this whole story. I have a good feel, I think, for how much people actually research and educate themselves before getting a dog, and IMO, most don't do enough. The few who actually put in effort will read the breed clubs website.


I find this really frustrating as well. So far I've only rescued, but I do think about buying from a breeder in the future and I spend time trying to educate myself about knowing good from bad. But it's so much less simple than it seems, and if you can't trust the breed clubs, who can you trust? It's really hard for the average person to figure it out. And it's disheartening that some of (not sure how many) the people most invested in dog husbandry could go so far astray.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

begemot said:


> To whom is this post directed? The people you're arguing with have specifically said, in just the last pages of this thread, that no dogs are genetically "clean" -- that's the point. Inbreeding doubles up problematic genes, causing problems.
> 
> This is an example of using a "straw man" argument. That's another logical fallacy.
> 
> ...


Duh. It was an article. Not written by me. I thought it was relevant to much of the discussion. You can certainly jump up and down and claim that it is not and play with your list of fallacious arguments looking for something that sort of fits, if it pleases you to do so. Just as inbreeding can double up on problematical genes, it can also double up on desirable genes. BTW, please show me the other threads where I have copy and pasted this letter. Thanks eversomuch


----------

