|
|
Location: Alberta, Canada
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 285
|
23-02-2011, 10:23 PM
Originally Posted by Jackbox 
in some breeds it is not an option, and as Chesky2000 has stated on another thread, her breed has one of the smallest , yet has no major health issues.
its not the size of the gene pool, it what it consists off..
Ruby
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
23-02-2011, 10:23 PM
Originally Posted by Gnasher
Agreed, I was just trying not to be anti pedigree! IMO, ALL gene pools are bad. You can ethically and knowledgeably breed all you like, you are still mating too close relations, which is bad, bad bad. I work in a hospital as a medical secretary and we have a lot of genetic problems cropping up because of the practice of certain cultures of first cousin marriages. This almost always results in genetic and other problems - and that is "only" first cousins. With dogs, it is extremely common for closer relationships, mother/father, brother/sister, and it always astounds me that these are accepted as being perfectly OK and normal. Dogs are mammals and no different from us - it is genetically unsound practice to inbreed, and yet as I say, it seems to be perfectly acceptable. It has astounded me for many a long year.
Breeders of dogs , will never follow that path, 1) its very rare to see close family matings these days, and when it is done it will be a one off, then you will out cross , for a few generations.
If you are going to follow the logic that every close mating is going to throw up malformations and health issues, why do we have so many problems in breeds that have huge gene pools????
There is no doubt, (I dont disagree with you ) that inbreeding can cause problems, but the problems have to be there in the first place, not every inbred dog will automatically be plagued with health issues, you are more likely to find said problems in any breed or cross breed that has been bred without thought .
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
23-02-2011, 10:25 PM
Originally Posted by rubylover
What is the breed being spoken about here?
Ruby
P,S sorry, its getting late, not endangered , but import register, they are rare here in the UK.
|
|
|
|
Location: East Midlands, UK
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,775
|
23-02-2011, 10:32 PM
Originally Posted by Jackbox
The difference there is that certain cultures who practice close marriages will have done so for generation after generation, their parents will have married their cousin, their parents will have married their cousins and so on and so on , it goes back hundreds of generations, and NO amount of medical information will change their way of thinking.
Agreed - but it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't stop the genetic problems. They multiply as time goes on, irrrespective of their cultural way of thinking. It does NOT make it right that we do the same thing with our dogs.
Breeders of dogs , will never follow that path, 1) its very rare to see close family matings these days, and when it is done it will be a one off, then you will out cross , for a few generations.
It only needs to be done ONCE to cause problems for generations. I accept it is becoming less common nowadays, but IMO the damage has been done with every breed virtually
If you are going to follow the logic that every close mating is going to throw up malformations and health issues, why do we have so many problems in breeds that have huge gene pools????
Because to create those huge gene pools (not sure huge is the right word, but I'll let that one go) close-breeding had to occur in the first place
There is no doubt, (I dont disagree with you ) that inbreeding can cause problems, but the problems have to be there in the first place, not every inbred dog will automatically be plagued with health issues, you are more likely to find said problems in any breed or cross breed that has been bred without thought .
Not true - inbreeding will ALWAYS cause problems - if not in the first generation, then in subsequent. And yes, you are quite correct in saying that this will apply to mongrels or crossbreeds too - IF they are closely related - which is why we have some genetic problems in the NI's, Utes, etc. etc. Unethical breeders who have jumped on the bandwagon to make loads of money - no different from some pedigree breeders IMO
|
|
|
|
Location: Alberta, Canada
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 285
|
23-02-2011, 10:33 PM
Originally Posted by Jackbox
The Cesky Terrier, they are on our endangered list, and from what Cesky says, they are moderately healthy, even with a small gene pool.
Ceskys are in fact a good example of what rigorous selection and a bit of luck can do in the way of getting rid of some deleterious recessives. They do suffer from inbreeding depression (fertility, immune mediated diseases) and higher rates of cancer, however. Cesky breeders are well aware of this and in fact work hard at keeping diversity in the breed.
Not all breeds got this lucky in their foundation or in selection, and this is a rare example.
http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/20...nd-wolf-chows/
Ruby
|
|
|
|
Location: East Midlands, UK
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,775
|
23-02-2011, 10:34 PM
Originally Posted by DevilDogz
But these 'claims' will never be true. Not all pedigree dogs are insured. There may be more GSD insured than Boxers, therefore stands to right there would be more claims made by GSD owners.
|
|
|
|
Location: East Midlands, UK
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 8,775
|
23-02-2011, 10:37 PM
Originally Posted by rubylover
I thought that might be the breed. I guess it must depend then on what one considers moderately healthy.
Ceskys are in fact a good example of what rigorous selection and a bit of luck can do in the way of getting rid of some deleterious recessives. They do suffer from inbreeding depression (fertility, immune mediated diseases) and higher rates of cancer, however. Cesky breeders are well aware of this and in fact work hard at keeping diversity in the breed.
Not all breeds got this lucky in their foundation, and this is a rare example.
http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/20...nd-wolf-chows/
http://www.ridleyceskyterriers.co.uk/section328581.html
Ruby
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 7,723
|
23-02-2011, 10:37 PM
Originally Posted by DevilDogz
But these 'claims' will never be true. Not all pedigree dogs are insured. There may be more GSD insured than Boxers, therefore stands to right there would be more claims made by GSD owners.
If more GSD's are insured then the company would have an more accurate idea of the average expected costs across the lifetime of each GSD
If less boxers are insured then the insurance company would have a less compleate picture
The policy amount is not based on how many dogs of that type insured but based on the expected cost of that breed
Insurance companies are not swayed by television programmes of gut feelings but they are out there to make money, so if a breed has higher premiums then this is because they have found that they have had to pay out more pet dog of that breed (on average) than on dogs of a different breed
|
|
|
|
Location: Alberta, Canada
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 285
|
23-02-2011, 10:52 PM
Originally Posted by Gnasher
What lovely dogs, esp the Wolf chow - magnificent, reminds me of my Hal.
It became the Eurasier in the end, from what I understand.
Ruby
|
|