• Announcements

    • Admin

      Regulamin Forum   12/31/16

      Dogomania na Facebooku
      https://www.facebook.com/groups/DogomaniaPL/    
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
imported_Matty

Purebred breeding not a good idea?

17 posts in this topic

I don't want people to attack me like I have seen others attacked for trying to discuss this very same topic. So, if your purebred sensitive, don't read this post :lol:

[url]http://www.canine-genetics.com/Price.htm[/url]

[url]http://www.canine-genetics.com/Price.htm[/url]

[url]http://www.angelfire.com/biz4/MastiffBreeder/cul-de-sac.html[/url]

These sites really made me stop and think about the harm purebred breeding is doing to our dogs. :o To think that they are pulling the wool over our eyes by saying they are checking for genetic diseases in purebreds and they are creating the diseases in the first place :o talk about people pulling the wool over our eyes. I was surprised after reading this that a person who breeds those doodle breeds and other crosses is really doing dogs a favor.
I feel like Im on that band wagon where other people look at disdain at :lol: it kinda makes me think about how people who first started talking about raw diets and BARF where made to feel like idiots by the so called experts.
I also want to note that I am not looking for an argument. I just wanted people to read these and make up their own minds and really read what is going on. Next time I hear a breeder saying they are bettering a breed, I will roll my eyes cause now I know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a paragraph from one of the websites I linked for all to view. I thought this was very straightforward and sums it up nicely. By the way CKC stands for the Canadian Kennel Club in this website.

[quote]Population geneticists insist that limited populations under strong artificial selection, subjected to high levels of incest breeding - such as our own CKC purebreds -- simply cannot maintain genetic viability and vigor in the long term without the periodic introduction of new and unrelated genetic material. They are referring, moreover, to true outcrossing, the introduction of stock unrelated to the breeding line, not merely the use of a dog which might be from someone else's kennel but is derived from exactly the same foundation stock some generations back. [/quote]

So basically if your breeding Doberman's then you should throw a good genetically sound Rottweiler, greyhound, manchester terrier and what ever else was used to make the Dobe. Purebred breeders should be cross breeding often to make the gene pool larger.
What do you think :question: :niewiem: :confused1:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Matty']What do you think :question: :niewiem: :confused1:[/quote]

I think I'm not touching this discussion with a ten foot pole 8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think breed clubs should consider an outcross every now and then. It could only make the breed stronger in my opinion.

It has become pretty apparent that keeping the breeding books closed and allowing only "pure" breeding is harmful.

I think many responsible breeders do believe they are breeding to "better the breed", but they're fighting an uphill battle. The only way to really better the breed sometimes, may be to introduce brand new blood into the mix. But as far as I know, this is never considered to be a viable option. I don't think it could hurt to try anyway. :-?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Matty']OK :wink: didn't really think it was a debate. Its just stating facts :wink:[/quote]

I wouldn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You make a good point, Matty.

But remember, whatever happens you will end up with a purebred. Carolina Dogs, for example. They weren't bred by humans, but eventually turned into a breed in the swamps of Carolina. Not all of them look the same, but I think their genetics are the same.

Dogs that live in cold climates will develop shaggy coats.

Dogs that live in deserts will develop long legs.

And if all the purebreds in the world were let loose to breed than in a couple of thousand years your going to end up with one breed of dog. Survival of the fittest.

I don't think you should be against the idea of PEDIGREES, but people breeding them. For instance, Salukis. I read an article about how all the Salukis now found in Canada only originated from about 5 brought to Canada in the 1960s. So thats caused a lot of genetic problems in what was a once healthy breed. To try and save the breed, they introduced new blood from [b]the same breed[/b] all the way from Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Iraq, Qatar, and Bahrain. The dogs weren't the Western version of the breed, and so looked different. They were what the Saluki looked like before being introduced to the western civilization. Still, they helped save a lot of bloodlines.

So instead of saying all breeders are wrong (which isn't fair at all, these people dedicate their LIVES to their dogs) maybe you could say that the concept of showing is wrong? Like the emphasis on dogs beauty instead of its working ability, health..

And to ENCOURAGE all those DISGUSTING Poo breeders is just WRONG, sorry. These people, "doing the dogs a favour" are doing it unintentionally. You actually think they sat down and thought "Hey, lets improve dogs health!" and started breeding the Poo breeds for +$1000? Nope, its a cruel world out there and there are cruel people who may want you to think it.

Anyways, aren't they breeding purebreds? I mean, they call their Poo breeds purebreds. Why aren't you saying their genetically unstable? They will be in a few years!

So I guess the point of my long, long post is this. Whatever happens you'll end up with a purebred thats developed to survive in its habitat. People breeding their dogs aren't wrong, dog shows could be. And Poo breeders are wrong in my eyes, no matter what anyone tells me.

Nice topic. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree that the pure breed gene pool is less diverse than I would like and genetic testing along with evidence of obvious genetic faults are ignored more often than I feel comfortable with I have to disagree on one point you made. The statement you mad about the "Doodles"

[quote] I was surprised after reading this that a person who breeds those doodle breeds and other crosses is really doing dogs a favor.
[/quote]

I can't in any way support this statement. I skimmed the two articles you linked looking for where they might have said this because it's just not something I can wrap my mind around. The simple fact is if you breed a Lab with HD to a Poodle with HD guess what...you have puppies with a greater chance of HD. So how is this "doing dogs a favor"?

I do believe that the gene pool does need to be widened a bit such as Rowie's example of the Saluki's. Even out crossing or pulling a PB example from another country can be harmful to the breed if they carry the gene for HD or other genetic issues. I can't believe that these "Doodle breeders" are doing many if any of what I call necessary health testing on their breeding stock, it would cut into their profit.

Genetic testing is not pulling the wool over a prospective buyers eyes if in fact they are doing what is necessary to remove those with gentic defects in a bloodline. That is the biggest issue in my mind. Too many breeders are knowningly breeding dogs with heart, elbow, eyes, thyroid and hip issues to name just a few. There are blood lines out there that I'm sure (even though I'm not into pure bred dogs or the beauty contests) that are known to carry a genetic defect but because they produce dogs that can win in the conformation ring are still being used for breeding. That to me is HIGHLY unacceptable and is the core of the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does????

Honestly I wish someone had told my Aussie/Lab mutt that. (Parents confrimed). She has Hip Dysplasia.

Man I wish someone had told her that! It would save a lot of heart ache that is coming up as she gets older. It's mild enough to only bother her after exertion. I had to have her x-rayed a few years ago because she started having problems with her hips we thought it was arthritis but seeing she was only 5 at the time I couldn't believe that. Doc did x-rays and declared "Thank god she is fixed!" Her hips are not as bad as they could be but they aren't great either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='CincoandDahlilasgirl']This may be off the topic but I heard if u have a mix breed it elimnates most purebred prone health problems?[/quote]

Nope. "Hybrid vigor" as it is called is a myth. Genetics are genetics, and mixes have the same chance of having problems as their parents. Mixes aren't exempt. Part of the reason that that theory is supported is the fact that many of these mixes aren't tested for the things that thier purebred relatives are. I know there is more info on that topic here on dogo, do a search for "hybrid vigor."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Matty']I don't want people to attack me like I have seen others attacked for trying to discuss this very same topic. So, if your purebred sensitive, don't read this post :lol:

[url]http://www.canine-genetics.com/Price.htm[/url]

[url]http://www.canine-genetics.com/Price.htm[/url]

[url]http://www.angelfire.com/biz4/MastiffBreeder/cul-de-sac.html[/url]

These sites really made me stop and think about the harm purebred breeding is doing to our dogs. :o To think that they are pulling the wool over our eyes by saying they are checking for genetic diseases in purebreds and they are creating the diseases in the first place :o talk about people pulling the wool over our eyes. I was surprised after reading this that a person who breeds those doodle breeds and other crosses is really doing dogs a favor.
I feel like Im on that band wagon where other people look at disdain at :lol: it kinda makes me think about how people who first started talking about raw diets and BARF where made to feel like idiots by the so called experts.
I also want to note that I am not looking for an argument. I just wanted people to read these and make up their own minds and really read what is going on. Next time I hear a breeder saying they are bettering a breed, I will roll my eyes cause now I know better.[/quote]

I think that is the silliest thing I've ever heard. I'm not sensitive in the least, but think this is a joke. I have dogs that are from linebreeding and inbreeding and the gene pool for some lines are not very diverse thats why you outcross when needed. There is no reason to think purebreds are walking plagues, from researching my dogs pedigrees I can see the breeding for decades and decades, I can actually trace over a century back but they are sick and riddled with some genetic disorders. If that were so then many more tested dogs would come up positive after all the gene pool being less diverse. Linebreeding, inbreeding or breeding purebred dogs doesn't CREATE genetic diseases. I think someone has pulled the wool over your eyes. The only way for the dogs to have a genetic disease would be just that genes, it doesn't matter if they are any unrelated dog of some mixed up breed to another, if they are carriers of a disease they will pass it on. If you isolate those genes you will get a bad line since you didn't cull it out. You can spread this through a purebred and make a breed more prone to having this disease however its not anything that wouldn't come up in mixed breed dogs. I don't see how breeding poo poo mixes is doing a favor to dogs? Breedings mutts for $1500 to make a quick buck isn't doing a favor to the dogs. Breeding numorous dogs that will end up in shelters isn't any kind of favor. Breeding dogs with genetic problems and illness isn't doing them a favor. Having dogs with temperament and structure problems I don't see that as a favor for the dogs. Talk about NOT knowing better, I'm not attacking here but its plain to see if you something about breeding I'd think you'd understand that breeding genetically sound dogs as best as possible is bettering the breed is right VS breeding to mutts together because you think they will be cute, think you can make money, think they will be healthier which isn't bettering anything. Actually the way I see it breeding a healthy, hearty, stable and all around sound pure family is some of the best breeding you will get, anything bad is eliminated and with the limited gene pool of positve traits and negatives weeded out you won't have anything allowed in, only once in a while would a cull pop much less likely then scatterbreeding or breeding two different breeds together who could either both be carries of a disease or CREATE a defect by the offspring. Hybrid Vigor, its true its just a myth, something created without education behind it, like many other beliefs of the past as well its still used today by those who want to peddle mixed breed dogs. Matter of fact the dogs I've had the worse problems with or known personally to have temperament and health defects have been mixes and crosses more so then purebreds. The only purebred I had a problem with was a byb Boxer the rest were not purebreds and had genetic disorders and some bad temperament problems. So I will never believe that hog wash, me seeing a dog with a bad underbite, cherry eyes and heart murmer are enough to know that cross breeding doesn't eliminate health disorders. Its good for people to make up their own minds and have educated opinions but basing them on MORE RESEARCH and genetic facts out there would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TRUE PITS, as you say, linebreeding can be done well with no genetic abnormalities.
But by the looks of things you breed or support the breeding of pitbulls.
I think pitbulls can be treated differently from other breeds because of what they have been used for in their history.
It's no secret that pits were bred for fighting other animals so, as a result, they have less defects than other breeds.
This is because any dog with bad hips or underbite or whatever else didn't make the grade as a fighting dog and was culled before it was allowed to breed. The end result is that pits have been line bred by people who wanted performance and performance hinges entirely on a dog's health and ability to fight or hunt.
It's the same with working sheepdogs etc, any dog not able to perform is shot or neutered/spade before it is allowed to pass on its undesirable traits.
I also have to disagree that line breeding does not create genetic disease.
Take a look at the english bulldog, that poor mutt was linebred to look like that for some sick reason. Now it's a poor excuse for a dog and it is riddled with genetically passed on problems. I know they aren't exactly diseases but it's the same principle.
Not having a go at pits, I LOVE them and have owned many over the years. I think it's the no nonsense breeding of pits by the old fighting dog breeders that has made the pit the robust, healthy dog it is today.
That will change tho as idiots breed for colour and confirmation rather than performance and ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stargaze, Iagree that conformation and gait are important for working dogs and the like but I disagree that a daschund is any good now at what it was bred to do in the first place.
Daschunds were made to go to earth after badgers and foxes and they did it well, a hundred years ago. Since then breeders have exagerated their length and stumpy legs to the extreme and I guarantee you won't find many people using pure daschunds for foxing work today.
Today's foxers use patterdales, borders and jack russels and foxies etc. I know one guy who crossed a daschund with a foxie and got a decent earth dog, but the daschund bitch he owned was useless as a fox/earth dog.
As for bulldogs, the same story applies. Today's english bulldog would not be able to hold a bull like the olde english bulldogs of 100 years ago. Today's dog is not much good for any physical activity except laying on the couch snoring while you watch tv. They are a beautifully natured dog tho.
The american bulldog is what the old english bulldog used to look like but it ( the english bulldog) has been transformed into what it is today by breeders who thought exagerating a feature would win shows for them. Unfortunately it does win shows for them.
If you look at pics of dogs shown at big dog shows 50 years ago and then look at pics of dogs shown at today's shows, you'll see a marked difference in style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='pigman']Stargaze, Iagree that conformation and gait are important for working dogs and the like but I disagree that a daschund is any good now at what it was bred to do in the first place.
Daschunds were made to go to earth after badgers and foxes and they did it well, a hundred years ago. Since then breeders have exagerated their length and stumpy legs to the extreme and I guarantee you won't find many people using pure daschunds for foxing work today.
Today's foxers use patterdales, borders and jack russels and foxies etc. I know one guy who crossed a daschund with a foxie and got a decent earth dog, but the daschund bitch he owned was useless as a fox/earth dog.
As for bulldogs, the same story applies. Today's english bulldog would not be able to hold a bull like the olde english bulldogs of 100 years ago. Today's dog is not much good for any physical activity except laying on the couch snoring while you watch tv. They are a beautifully natured dog tho.
The american bulldog is what the old english bulldog used to look like but it ( the english bulldog) has been transformed into what it is today by breeders who thought exagerating a feature would win shows for them. Unfortunately it does win shows for them.
If you look at pics of dogs shown at big dog shows 50 years ago and then look at pics of dogs shown at today's shows, you'll see a marked difference in style.[/quote]

it depends where in the world you are. in germany, the dachshund (also referred to as "teckel" or "dackel") is still used as a working dog just like it was used 500 years ago. you have breeders who breed the dog to the standard properly, they don't produce overbred couch potato dogs like the ones so common here in the US - in which a flashy color is more important than anything else. if you take a poorly bred border terrier or jack, they are just as unlikely to do the job as a poorly bred dachshund.

it's the same thing with the dachshunds as with many other working breeds that have been ruined by breeding just for show, or worse, strictly for the pet market in puppy mills.

i've been involved in dachshunds for 14 years and own a wirehaired standard dachshund from working lines who i can assure you does her job just fine - and so do the other dachshunds at trials and hunts. :)

and just by the way - there are not just two but three different sizes of dachshunds mentioned in the breed standard, the smallest one being developed not for going down fox or badger holes, but rabbit holes. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0