or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › The Mindful Home › Pets › S/O- what is a backyard breeder?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

S/O- what is a backyard breeder? - Page 3

post #41 of 72
she~ love what you have to say. You are very knowledgeable! I share your opinion on the whole purebred/mutt debate. I think that the whole purebred thing is like a eugenics experiment for dogs. Inbred animals are not ever going to be healthy. all the purebreds had to be inbred at some point to produce their 'breed'.

(ya, it's an older thread, i dont care.)
post #42 of 72
OK, you've made a statement; now back it up. Show me ANY information that says that well-bred purebreds (again, we're talking carefully bred, not backyard bred or puppy mill) are less healthy than the average first- or second-generation crossbred. I went on and on for a considerable length of time up there earlier in the thread about why random-bred dogs are NOT going to be magically healthier; if you think I'm wrong please let me know how and why.

I'd honestly love to have a discussion about coefficients of inbreeding in some purebreds and whether we can correlate a high COI to less resistance to certain diseases and whatnot (this is a topic that is very relevant to all dogs), but it's hard to talk thoughtfully when you're pretty sure that all purebreds are freaky eugenics experiments and I'm pretty sure they're not. So let's figure that out first.
post #43 of 72
Thread Starter 
I don't understand this logic either.

If you have a poorly bred GSD and breed it against a poorly bred Lab, then breed the result against a poorly bred Collie, you end up with a healthy dog? How? If x amount of inbreeding took place in the GSD's background, and y amount of inbreeding took place in the Collie's background, those amounts of inbreeding are also present in the crossbred puppy, yes? Mixing breeds does not take their background away.

My dog is a mix of three breeds. That doesn't make him magically less prone to the things which each of his breeds is prone to. It just gives me more things that I have to watch him for throughout his life.

As for the indestructible ubiquitous country dog, I doubt that too. I think it is more likely that since they all sort of look similar, you didn't notice the turnover rate. Plus, of course, natural selection is at play there. A dog who doesn't do certain things is more likely to die or get sick, so the ones that are left are the ones which have certain behaviour patterns. Which is not to say that a lot of dogs didn't die or get sick.

I think that the logic in the PP is backwards.
post #44 of 72
Dogs have been selectively bred for thousands of years, sometimes by inbreeding dogs from the same ancestral lines, sometimes by mixing dogs from very different lines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_breeds

Okay, not ALL are inbred. But the inbred ones were bred with other inbred ones to come up with the breeds there are today. Those must be healthier than the original inbred dogs.


Results of Inbreeding (in mammals)
* reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
* increased genetic disorders
* fluctuating facial asymmetry
* lower birth rate
* higher infant mortality
* slower growth rate
* smaller adult size
* loss of immune system function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
sounds like a lot of characteristics of 'purebred' dogs.

there is continuing tension within many purebred animal breeds over the question of when a breed may need to allow "outside" blood in for the purpose of improving the overall health and vigor of an animal breed.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purebred

A purebred dog is a dog of a modern breed of dog, with written documentation showing the individual purebred dog's descent from its breed's foundation stock. In dogs, the term breed is used two ways: loosely, to refer to dog types or landraces of dog (also called natural breeds or ancient breeds); or more precisely, to refer to modern breeds of dog, which are documented so as to be known to be descended from specific ancestors, that closely resemble others of their breed in appearance, movement, way of working and other characters; and that reproduce with offspring closely resembling each other and their parents =inbred http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purebred

thought this was funny... Veterinarian and author Dr. Michael Fox claims that, "The best use of pedigree papers is for housebreaking your dog. They don't mean a damn thing. You can have an immune- deficient puppy that is about to go blind and has epilepsy, hip dysplasia, hemophilia and one testicle, and the AKC will register it"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breeding

what about this? Animal rights group PETA [4] periodically attacking the American Kennel Club claiming that AKC adds to the pet overpopulation problem by encouraging breeding pure bred dogs when millions of dogs are killed yearly in US animal shelters. I never thought of that, but it sure doesn't seem fair to me that so many purebreds are produced, yet good strong dogs are euthanized in the shelters. It's not just puppy mills that kill shelter dogs!!!!!!!!!

this blog has a chart of inbred shelties and some very interesting factoids. http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com...-thinking.html that inbred King Charles II of Spain sure does look like a 'pug'.....
***************************************
now, I gotta go have breakfast.
post #45 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by SevenVeils View Post

If you have a poorly bred GSD and breed it against a poorly bred Lab, then breed the result against a poorly bred Collie, you end up with a healthy dog? How? If x amount of inbreeding took place in the GSD's background, and y amount of inbreeding took place in the Collie's background, those amounts of inbreeding are also present in the crossbred puppy, yes? Mixing breeds does not take their background away.
well then there is a wider genetic spectrum. less likelihood of genetic defects if one is not inbred.
post #46 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by majazama View Post

Results of Inbreeding (in mammals)
* reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
* increased genetic disorders
* fluctuating facial asymmetry
* lower birth rate
* higher infant mortality
* slower growth rate
* smaller adult size
* loss of immune system function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
sounds like a lot of characteristics of 'purebred' dogs.
Please show me a breed of dog that has these characteristics.

It seems to me that you are doing a lot of talking, but not a lot of listening. Reputable breeders are highly motivated to IMPROVE their breed, not allow the development of the characteristics you've shown above. I can see these traits arising through puppy mills and casual breeders, but certainly NOT in reputable kennels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by majazama View Post
[B]
A purebred dog is a dog of a modern breed of dog, with written documentation showing the individual purebred dog's descent from its breed's foundation stock. In dogs, the term breed is used two ways: loosely, to refer to dog types or landraces of dog (also called natural breeds or ancient breeds); or more precisely, to refer to modern breeds of dog, which are documented so as to be known to be descended from specific ancestors, that closely resemble others of their breed in appearance, movement, way of working and other characters; and that reproduce with offspring closely resembling each other and their parents =inbred http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purebred
And you have a problem with this definition? I think we will all agree that a dog of a specific breed should LOOK like a dog of that breed. A Lab that looks like a Boxer isn't representative of a Lab, is he?

Quote:
Originally Posted by majazama View Post
[B]
thought this was funny... Veterinarian and author Dr. Michael Fox claims that, "The best use of pedigree papers is for housebreaking your dog. They don't mean a damn thing. You can have an immune- deficient puppy that is about to go blind and has epilepsy, hip dysplasia, hemophilia and one testicle, and the AKC will register it"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breeding
I wouldn't go quite that far, but I do agree that AKC registration alone does not mean much. It simply means that both parents were registered. The AKC does not police breeders or verify that registered dogs are healthy. I'm just guessing here, but I suspect that the AKC originally expected breeders to police themselves.

Unfortunately, many people don't understand the difference between a reputable breeder and a casual breeder or puppy mill, and mistakenly believe that any "papered" dog is healthy, conforms to the breed standard, and eligible for breeding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by majazama View Post
[B]
what about this? Animal rights group PETA [4] periodically attacking the American Kennel Club claiming that AKC adds to the pet overpopulation problem by encouraging breeding pure bred dogs when millions of dogs are killed yearly in US animal shelters. I never thought of that, but it sure doesn't seem fair to me that so many purebreds are produced, yet good strong dogs are euthanized in the shelters. It's not just puppy mills that kill shelter dogs!!!!!!!!!
PETA also periodically breaks into research labs and lets the animals "free", into an envoronment for which they may be totally ill-suited. They thrive on scare tactics and emotional ploys.

As for the claim - this has been discussed here in the past. Purebred dogs from reputable breeders make up only a small portion of dogs in the US. A reputable breeder will take back any dog they've ever sold - these dogs are NOT ending up in shelters. It's puppy mills and casual breeders that are producing and selling puppies, then absolving themselves of all responsibility for them. These are the dogs ending up in shelters.

You might argue that if reputable breeders did not exist, that folks like me would get dogs at shelters. Thismight be true in some cases, but not all. I am not interested in a shelter dog - on whose history and temperment are unknown. I have children - I need ot have some confidence that the puppy I bring home has been socialized, I want to know how big he is going to get, and what to expect in terms of his personality and requirements. It's pretty tough to get that from a shelter dog.
post #47 of 72
Thread Starter 
A lot of talking and not much listening, yes.

Please reread what I posted with an open mind. You are not replying logically.
post #48 of 72
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by majazama View Post
well then there is a wider genetic spectrum. less likelihood of genetic defects if one is not inbred.
A well bred, healthy GSD bred to another well bred, healthy GSD is not inbred. I'm not denying that there is some inbreeding that has happened and does happen (more often linebreeding but I'm not telling you about that, you won't understand), but if I breed two unrelated dogs, they are no more inbred just because they happen to be of the same breed, than is any shelter mutt.

Not only that, I'd venture a guess that the ubiquitous country dogs that a PP talked about are more recently inbred than are the dogs at Westminster. After all, they all seem to somewhat resemble one another, are all in a similar location which is very remote. None are tied or confined, right? What exactly do you think is preventing aunts or mothers from getting bred from their nephews or sons?
post #49 of 72
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by majazama View Post
well then there is a wider genetic spectrum. less likelihood of genetic defects if one is not inbred.
Oh, and that didn't even answer what I posted at all, by the way.

If you breed an inbred dog to another inbred dog, the puppies still have the same amount of inbreeding regardless of whether the inbred parents are the same breed or not.
post #50 of 72
[QUOTE=North_Of_60;11125735]D) They want their kids to whiteness the miracle of birth. That's another big one.

Ugh, that always gets to me If you want it so bad, have a homebirth or let them witness someone else's birth when they're older! My son witnessed the birth of his baby sister when he was 3. Poor excuse to breed dogs, though.
post #51 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by SevenVeils View Post
I'm not denying that there is some inbreeding that has happened and does happen (more often linebreeding but I'm not telling you about that, you won't understand),
wow, that's pretty insulting.:
post #52 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by majazama View Post
this blog has a chart of inbred shelties and some very interesting factoids. http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com...-thinking.html
You should know that Terrierman's blog (and website, and book) is heavily steeped in politics. He is against Russell's becoming recognized by the AKC. The current Russell, the Parson Russell Terrier, is a spin off of the JRTCA standard, and they changed the name from Jack to Parson to appease both groups. He is an advocate of type-breeding, which so am I to a point, though I do see the benefits to having conformation classes as an accompaniment to working.

While his "facts" are fairly accurate on a lot of fronts, he gives it a spin that highly suits his motives, and it seems you've bought into it without knowing too much about the politics and history. I suggest you do more reading on the history of the AKC, how a closed registry actually helps maintain a breed's integrity, and then look into type-breeding.
post #53 of 72
This is some very good discussion.

I think it's very impertant to differentiate between the concepts of genetic bottlenecking and deliberate breeding. The first is what happens when only a few of the available individuals are allowed to breed and so they do so very tightly--an excellent example of this is the royal dynasties mentioned in the link above. In these cases everybody breeds with everybody else within that tight group; there's massive inbreeding across the board and so whatever deleterious genes exist within the population keep meeting each other and resulting in sick offspring.

Then there's the concept of deliberate breeding, where individuals are bred together with the goal of improving type, health, longevity, etc. In other words, there is no indiscriminate mating and the healthiest animals are bred together.

The first situation leads to a loss of genetic diversity with no benefit and a great deal of illness.

The second also leads to a loss of genetic diversity, but every attempt is made to "drop off" the specifically *un*healthy genes, so what is left may actually be of benefit.

A great example is the development of disease-resistant species of plants, where the ordinary and largely outcrossed individuals will be consumed by a blight or borer but the ones that are not genetically diverse will not.

That's why you have to be very careful when using examples of inbreeding horror that were seen in humans or some other artificially suppressed population; in those examples no effort was made to de-select the unhealthy and encourage the healthy to reproduce.

My other big point is this: If you're going to criticize the way purebred dogs are produced, you need to offer an alternative that is more efficient and more ethical for all concerned (dogs, puppies, owners). It has to reliably produce longer-lived, healthier dogs, with predictable temperaments, who can reliably do the jobs that people still need dogs to do (hunt, herd, protect, etc.), it has to do so in a way that is trackable and reportable, and it can't produce dogs that won't have homes. If you can't offer a better way than the body of dog fanciers currently does it, then you're just armchair quarterbacking and it's totally unfair to expect those of us who ARE doing it to listen to you and obey you.

There are also a couple of fallacies being bandied about: The AKC and the English KC do NOT have an immutable policy of closed studbook. Any breed club can apply to have an infusion of genetic material from another breed. For example, Clumber Spaniels were allowed into the Sussex Spaniel studbook in the 1960s; most Sussex now have some Clumber blood.

There are also breeds that have made enormous efforts to keep their genetic material coming in. For example, the Canaan Dog club actively encourages the importation of Beduin-origin dogs through a unique partnership with the Israeli kennel club (which allows wild-caught dogs into the Israeli studbook; from there the dogs can be registered in AKC).

As purebred dog breeders, we do have to be very careful when we make choices that minimize genetic diversity. I personally wish that more clubs were keeping track of "founding fathers" and applied to use a wise and very limited cross-breeding program if they saw the founder lines dying out (for example, if they know that there are about 26 main sire lines in the breed, but they see that four of those lines are in danger of disappearing, they either encourage those lines to be bred again or they consider bringing in one or two healthy dogs from another breed to build up the sire lines). However, those decisions will be up to the individual clubs and the AKC leadership. And I think that on the whole the community of reputable breeders IS doing the very best job they can to maintain the consistency of their breeds without losing health and temperament.
post #54 of 72
Thread Starter 
I think that this argument comes down to the old 'hybrid vigour' fallacy.

Crossbred dogs are not hybrids.
post #55 of 72
kimballs~ I'm glad to hear that some breeders will bring in 'fresh blood'.

nd_deadhead~ you said.. Please show me a breed of dog that has these characteristics. ... I'm thinking all the dogs that are really small with deformed-looking faces (like a 'pug') would have been heavily inbred to get that way. How did wolves become chihuahuas? Wolves are the original dog, as I understand it.

I just think any dog that needs so much care to keep healthy is a pretty weak animal.. such as one that needs a constant haircut, checking for hip problems, etc.

You ladies are pretty passionate about dogs, and I respect that. I have a different understanding on how genetics works. In my world, the greater the genetic diversity, the stronger the animal.

I'm glad that my partner who I bred with (haha) is form the other side of the country and his ancestors are totally different from mine. My kids are extremely healthy, and have never had an ear infection, or severe flu. They have strong bones, teeth and clear eyes. If I had gotten pregnant with someone from the other side of the world I'm sure my kids would be even more tough. And if I had married my cousin, our kids would be probably not so well, having inherited our bad genes X2.

just sayin.
post #56 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by majazama View Post
I'm glad that my partner who I bred with (haha) is form the other side of the country and his ancestors are totally different from mine. My kids are extremely healthy, and have never had an ear infection, or severe flu. They have strong bones, teeth and clear eyes. If I had gotten pregnant with someone from the other side of the world I'm sure my kids would be even more tough. And if I had married my cousin, our kids would be probably not so well, having inherited our bad genes X2.
You do realize that unless you are (or descend) from First Nations people, your ancestors probably DID come from the other side of the world, right? And even then, there's still a good chance of that. And this situation wouldn't be the norm for a lot of people, so this theory is kind of weak in relation to the entire human race.

Just saying.

ETA: I'm Canadian Metis, with ancestors in the Central South US. I married a man who was born and raised 3500 miles away from me, and a year after we were married we found out through genealogy research that my ancestors owned a farm just few hundred miles from here. Kind of funny, so I'm not how "fresh" his genes are in my pool.
post #57 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by majazama View Post
kimballs~ I'm glad to hear that some breeders will bring in 'fresh blood'.

nd_deadhead~ you said.. Please show me a breed of dog that has these characteristics. ... I'm thinking all the dogs that are really small with deformed-looking faces (like a 'pug') would have been heavily inbred to get that way. How did wolves become chihuahuas? Wolves are the original dog, as I understand it.

I just think any dog that needs so much care to keep healthy is a pretty weak animal.. such as one that needs a constant haircut, checking for hip problems, etc.

You ladies are pretty passionate about dogs, and I respect that. I have a different understanding on how genetics works. In my world, the greater the genetic diversity, the stronger the animal.

I'm glad that my partner who I bred with (haha) is form the other side of the country and his ancestors are totally different from mine. My kids are extremely healthy, and have never had an ear infection, or severe flu. They have strong bones, teeth and clear eyes. If I had gotten pregnant with someone from the other side of the world I'm sure my kids would be even more tough. And if I had married my cousin, our kids would be probably not so well, having inherited our bad genes X2.

just sayin.
It's NOT the greater the genetic diversity the stronger the animal. That's not the way population ecology and genetics work. It's "the greater the genetic diversity the stronger the population." There are plenty of weak, unhealthy members of a diverse population; there are many strong, healthy members of a homogeneous population. The question is whether the population has a wide variety of genetic responses to present to a threat or illness--in a plague disease or major environmental threat the more diverse population will have a larger number of possible adaptations or immune responses and therefore theoretically more will survive.

Hybrid vigor, which is what everyone is talking about, is a very specific condition where when two VASTLY different members of a species, or two different species entirely, are bred together and produce an offspring that is larger, stronger, and more resistant to certain stresses than either of the parents were. For example, if you breed an Angus and a Brahma cow together, or a horse and a donkey, or a Muscovy duck and a mallard. It only works in the first generation and it only works when the two individuals are very different and have been for hundreds if not thousands of years. Lab and poodle? Not a chance. Shepherd and Greyhound? Nope. Virtually all dog breeds are only a couple of hundred years old AT MOST, so you're just recombining the genes that have barely begun to differentiate. No hybrid vigor there.

In terms of the pug face (all the brachycephalic breeds): There's a huge difference between the effects of inbreeding (indiscriminate inbreeding) and a mutation that was prized and encouraged to continue. The brachycephalic dog has been seen for over a thousand years, beginning in China; exports of the prized dogs brought the mutation to Europe and gave birth to all the short-faced breeds we have today. It was not a sign of genetic weakness that came about because of crazy inbreeding; it was a mutation that was noted and enjoyed and carefully encouraged to continue in what became a VERY diverse population.

Ditto the acondroplastic dwarf legs of the corgi and similar--some kind of spontaneous mutation that, it was noted, was easily passed on to subsequent generations. So you see it spread to ever more diverse populations, not concentrated and inbred in smaller and smaller populations. Again, the first acrondroplastic dogs were being deliberately bred to do a job (slow-motion, rocky-terrain herding, slow tracking) that could not be done as well by the long-legged dogs, well more than a thousand years ago.
post #58 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Of_60 View Post
You do realize that unless you are (or descend) from First Nations people, your ancestors probably DID come from the other side of the world, right? And even then, there's still a good chance of that. And this situation wouldn't be the norm for a lot of people, so this theory is kind of weak in relation to the entire human race.

Just saying.
yes, I know that my ancestors are from europe, obviously. As are my partners, but from different countries. I'm thinking that african would be the exact opposite genetics of mine, what I meant by other side of the world. since my partner and I are from opposite sides of the country, the fact that your ancestors are not related is much more likely, seeing as his came to montreal, and stayed there, while mine went to the prairies and then migrated west.
post #59 of 72
Thread Starter 
I would recommend to anyone with an interest or strong opinion about genetics to do just a little bit of study (or more, the more the better) on the subject before postulating 'facts' about it.

The smallest amount of reading on the subject should help to clear some of this up.

ETA: Joanna is correct about the origin of some of the things which a PP sees as a freaky result of inbreeding. A spontaneous mutation is just that.

A long coat is not a sign of a 'weak' dog. Checking for a problem does not mean that there is a problem. It means that you want to make sure that one does not exist before using that animal to make more animals.

On grooming: yesterday I watched a beautiful coyote walk right past my house. It was the size of a Golden Retriever (told you we had big coyotes ), and was clearly blowing coat. Its coat looked exactly the way that Ulysses' did before I raked his undercoat away. It is my belief that raking that loose hair away makes the animal more comfortable. Is my dog 'weak' because I removed that for him? Is the coyote 'stronger' because it's walking around with loose undercoat sitting there?

If you don't like to groom, get a smooth coated dog. No problem. But a dog which requires grooming is not somehow weak or more disease prone.
post #60 of 72
seven veils~ I read lots about genetics and a lot of it is common sense as well. Inbred animals are unhealthy. spontaneous mutation, you say is the cause of the 'pug' face and tiny legs, etc. But how did they create a whole BREED of dogs from one that mutated? Oh, I know, breed the mutated dog with it's parent or sibling!

kimballs~ I read on your site... that you have 'cardis' now for many reasons, and one is that your other breed; the danes, have a lot of health concerns. How could it be that this huge dog has so many health concerns? shouldn't they be strong, as they are so big?

You know what I think? I think that breeding a dog should try to encourage the good disposition and health of it (yeah yeah, you are breeding them for that, but within their tiny little genetic pool) and not how good they look for judges at an egotistical dog show.

Back yard breeders might be making some of the greatest dogs for health, beauty and awesome temperament, IMO. Not all, but maybe some.

What if all there was was purebreds, all over the world. Would you keep them in their little genetic pool, or try to strengthen them by crossbreeding with good matches?

and no one mentioned my question I asked previously. How did wolves become chihuahuas?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Pets
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › The Mindful Home › Pets › S/O- what is a backyard breeder?