apologies ... there was no intention to be rude ...my point is that that there is a vast gulf between the theory and the reality ....do you breed pedigree dogs ?

I'm not being over sensitive as I didn't take offence just wanted to point out whether you realised how rude you sometimes come across (in light of recent reported posts).

Thank you for the apology anyway and if you don't mind me saying, you seem to have a breadth of knowledge that I think many people would be interested in... if you were just a little more understanding in your approach (and gap in other people's). Try not making it an 'argument' but a discussion to help others see where you're coming from. (PS I'm just adding this paragraph as you seem to be genuinely interested in personal feedback - I'm happy to delete these posts if you prefer )

No worries xx

No I don't, I do fully undetstand the catch 22 you find yourselves in however r.e. breeding known stock versus unknown and trying to weigh up the pros and cons. Im certainly not trying to say u are doing it wrong or should not breed etc - simply having a chat with regards to the potential implications of various practises. That make sense? xx

eta r.e. Your last post. I fully agree with what you said. As long as breeders are aware that by breeding animals in such a way is potentially (and i very much mean potentially) problematic. I just find it annoying how many seem to bury their heads in the sand and deny genetic issues due to inbreeding exists xx

Im not arguing - this is a discussion, very much so. Perhaps because im trying to write so that the discussion makes sense to the "broader audience" makes me come across in a bad way - without being big headed it:s very difficult to explain complex concepts to an audience that aren't profs in the subject?

Id also like to add how frustrating it is to write long detailed posts just for people to not bother reading them properly, or delibaretly misconstruing what was said in order to try and sideline the chat and "win" if that makes sense? Thats when we all end up fighting fire with fire......

As for deleting - imo i would rather nothing gets deleted tbh

completely ....and the ONLY way forward is via discussions like this ...it's just a nonsense for different factions to stand with their fists up and remain unable or unwilling to listen to each other...both sides have much to learn - breeders must use the advances in our understanding of genetics to make the best possible breeding decisions but equally breeder's real concerns about 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' and their practical experience should be acknowledged and valued as well .

Absolutely and utterly agree 100%

It's so difficult for breeders - we develop more and more health tests but where does it lead? Programs like PDE blame breeders for genetic defects that at the time they would have no way of knowing was inherited (slthough of course i then still have a problem when breeders bury their heads in the sand and continue to breed from animals they know carry a defect).

There needs to a be a middle ground where we can maintain breeds whilst striving to maintain genetic fitness - and i think potentially in some cases this might mean the KC opening up to outcrossing - such as the dalmation example that i cant remember the details of now (sorry) but where a disease gene was easily removed from the population through a couple of outcrosses while still maintaining breed traits

My Aussie shep x Rottie had cancer at 41/2 T. cell lymphoma and had to be PTS.

My Bernese Ollie (pedigree) had to be PTS at 41/2 due to some rare and incurable diseases not showing up till post mortem while he was alive and being tested everything came back borderline or negative.
I tend not to think one or other is going to live longer than the other now. I just enjoy the time I have and hope Dillon pedigree Bernese will be healthier and have a longer trouble free life than my previous two dogs.

I'm coming in very late on this discussion, and I am not a scientist, but I watched a very interesting serious programme some time ago on the telly about the development of our species, about how there were several "waves" of early "man" to come out of Africa, and how eventually the "wave" that eventually evolved into Homo Sapiens consisted of only a very small number, less than a couple of hundred, which means that every single person on the planet are closely related and thus we are indeed extremely inbred, accounting for the myriad of genetic problems from which our species suffers. It was an extremely interesting programme and a real eye opener.

To an extent - but nowhere as closley as dogs
All species will have had a limited amount of individuals in the begining - including dogs
But
When we create breeds it is pretty much standard practise to use a very small number of individuals and then heavily inbreed to fix certain traits
This means from the already limited gene pool we then concentrait on some individuals and discard others - loosing genetic diversity at every step
Then we have the popular sire which produces big bottlenecks
and out of any breeding we pretty much pick one or two of the offspring to breed many times from so up to 50% of each parents genes are lost every generation

If humans are considered inbred then gwads knows we need a new term for the level of inbreeding in dogs
- and the COI althought interesting really dosent do a whole lot because it only goes back a few generations - even if you breed from a dog on a different continent they are still going back to the same founder dogs

I've highlighted in bold the nub of the whole thing IMO.

Dogs are not a species - they are part of the Canid genus, and are entirely man made, direct descendents of wolves and then manipulated by man over tens of thousands of years to create the thousands of breeds we have today. IMO the very fact that both dog and man came from such a tiny gene pool is the very reason why both dogs and humans have so many genetic problems, again IMO.