A lot of it is over my head too Archer... but one snippet here just about sums it up -

" It is notable
that several breeds commonly believed to be of
ancient origin such as the Pharaoh Hound and
Ibizan Hound, are not included in this group.
These are often thought to be the oldest of all
dog breeds, descending directly from the ancient
Egyptian dogs drawn on tomb walls more than
5000 years ago. Our results indicate, however,
that these two breeds have been recreated in
more recent times from combinations of other
breeds. Thus, although their appearance
matches the ancient Egyptian sight hounds,
their genomes do not. Similar conclusions apply
to the Norwegian Elkhound, which clusters
with modern European breeds rather than
with the other Arctic dogs, despite reports of
direct descent from Scandinavian origins more
than 5000 years ago (1, 24)."

http://www.akcchf.org/pdfs/press_rel.../dogbreeds.pdf

There seems to be no question that the modern day Elkhound resembles the morphology that has been deduced from the archeological findings, but DNA evidence suggests that this is down to selective breeding in modern times to recreate this phenotype from other breeds.

The Wayne study does prove the existence of one line back to the Scandinavian origins but this has been found only in the mtDNA which has no significance to morphology. mtDNA persists indefinitely (so long as the tail female line is maintained) because of the way in which it is inherited... it's passed down in an unbroken maternal line from daughter to daughter and so not sujected to recombination as is the nuclear DNA which can be lost from the gene pool.

And with this other evidence, it's likely that this Scandinavian line DNA forms a minute proportion of the breed gene (nDNA) complement, or none at all.

Oops, should have read the whole thread first!

Not sure why you'd need to be experienced to risk breeding mismarks. The heredity is quite simple and I would think the consequences much less serious than breeding health problems. It doesn't affect their working abilty or suitability as a pet.... just the showring. And I do believe that white on the chest, which is the usual mismark and perfectly acceptable by the standard, is also shunned in the showring.

I don't know if there are any DNA studies on the breed to determine diversity, if you have any evidence of a wide gene pool, I'd be interested to hear

I didn't mean it to sound like you have to be experienced to breed mismarks. It doesn't affect their suitability for working or pet but if the owner wants to try showing they're at an instant disavantage because of the markings. It's ok to have some white on the chest, it's white in other places such as the face or feet which is considered a fault. I've got no idea if there's been any DNA studies to show diversity, all I know is what I've read and been told that partis and solids shouldn't be bred together.

One of my girls doesn't have any repeated names until the 5th generation (if I've read it right) .

Even if the modern day elkhound is a recreation....the modern breed can be traced back to the early 1900's..hardly a new breed.
As for new breeds having less likelyhood for problems ,NI's I believe are proving to be a 'new breed' with its fair share of health issues

Multiquote is on the blink again, sorry.

Greyhawk, your post (no 40) was spot on.

Archer, appreciate some of it is tricky but all breeders for all pedigrees need to get their heads around this eventually. In evolutionary terms 100 years is next to nothing, sorry. Even if the Elk is a relatively modern recreation, it is probably based on a type that has been about a lot longer. However, you do have an exceptionally ancient dog in the JSI. It is one of the oldest out there, with ancestors in common with the original dog.
I think Nis take up sufficient space elsewhere - lets not distract from an important topic, lovely as they are!

I just want to finish by saying that my point on this thread is that to tar all pedigree breeders as bad and all pedigree breeds as unhealthy does nothing to encourage people to go out and buy a puppy in a responsible way.You're right...all breeders need to concentrate on breeding health dogs..but by making sweeping anti pedigree statements we are not doing anyone any good.Judge everyone(and every breed) as an individual

Not sure why you have assumed that? Of course they should be health tested. Yes crossbreeds are statistically likely to be healthier than pure breeds due to the open gene pool (I'm aware many breeders don't want to face up to that fact) but that absolutely does not give the breeder the right to breed them without carrying out health tests.

If your breed has an average hip score of 12 that means your breed suffers with HD. A breed not suffering with HD would have an average hip score of 0

Which of course no recorded breed does! Therefore there is evidence of hip displasia of some degree in every breed.

This of course would also indicate that there in every cross breed there will also be a level of hip displasia - making them no less prone to the disease than any pure breed.

There is a huge difference between dogs having a hip score indicating a level of hip displasia and the pain and discomfort of a dog which actually has a displastic hip (or two).

I understand the programme in question focuses quite heavily on the CKCS and syringomela (which i don't think i've spelt correctly).

I have heard various stories of the way in which the programme makers acted whilst filming - reducing an exibitor who had just one BIS to tears whislt still in the ring by questionning the dogs health for example - which lead me to believe that this is going to be an incedibly one sided point of view slamming all pedigree dogs and their breeders.