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

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 72 Old 06-26-2008, 11:45 PM - Thread Starter
 
SevenVeils's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lurking in my Lerkim
Posts: 6,864
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by majazama View Post
shouldn't they be strong, as they are so big?
They are strong. Physically strong, lots of muscle. Physical size and strength have nothing at all to do with the various health concerns that Danes have.

A 12 foot tall human would have a lot of health concerns as well, even though that person would be physically much stronger than an average person.

I give up. I think this is a troll and I've been sucked in.
SevenVeils is offline  
#62 of 72 Old 06-26-2008, 11:53 PM
 
North_Of_60's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posts: 7,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by majazama View Post
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!
No, you breed two dogs who possess that mutation together. I'm sure line breeding has happened within the pug breed, but that's how you create breeds - you select dogs that possess certain traits, and then you breed them together. It has nothing to do with inbreeding.

Quote:
and no one mentioned my question I asked previously. How did wolves become chihuahuas?
See above. It's called selective breeding.

Frankenstein never scared me. Marsupials do. Because they're FAST.
North_Of_60 is offline  
#63 of 72 Old 06-27-2008, 12:01 AM
 
North_Of_60's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posts: 7,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Here is a good example of selective breeding and how it can change the temperament and colouring of a species (or dog, which is the comparison here). Note that that the emphasis is on matching likely pairs together to perpetuate certain traits, not on inbreeding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox

Frankenstein never scared me. Marsupials do. Because they're FAST.
North_Of_60 is offline  
#64 of 72 Old 06-27-2008, 02:17 AM
 
thekimballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 5,724
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by majazama View Post
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!
I am not sure if this is deliberate trolling or not, but it's an important question to answer and so I will.

It would be foolish and self-defeating to create a breed with only tight inbreeding. Occasionally tight breeding like that is used to prove whether or not a new trait--type of coat, color, etc.--has the possibility of breeding true (in other words, if it's a true genetic mutation or just a congenital thing that is the result of uneven growth or even a disease).

The vast majority of dog breeds are based on function. A need was perceived, and a group of dogs was purpose-bred to fill that need. For example, big hounds to chase and kill boar. These would not have come from the same family or only one breeder; it would be the function of many gameskeepers and houndsmen who worked on the large estates across several European countries to buy and breed suitable dogs for this job, typically by crossing the big running dogs of greyhound type with the massive war-type dogs that we'd call mastiffs.

So for several hundred years you have a "type" of tall, strong, but elegant dog used to hunt boar. The ones that are the very best at it are prized and are used more heavily at stud; people also figure out that a certain head type, body type, and size/height works best to bring down boar, and they select puppies that display this type. Gradually the original broad definition of "boar dog" becomes narrowed and the dogs begin to look more alike.

Eventually the large landowners (we're still maybe 200-300 years ago now, in Germany and Denmark and the Netherlands) take pride in their dogs' appearance as well as their abilities, and begin to develop large kennels and select the most beautiful and functional dogs.

And then, finally, about 150 years ago, there's a desire to not only enjoy these dogs for their beauty but compete them against each other to see which is the most beautiful and the highest quality, including which dog has the body and head and size and so on that would most effectively support the dog doing its ancestral job of hunting boar. Various factions lobby for different names; the Germans want it called the German Dog, for example--but the group that wants to call it the Great Dane wins.

At that time the infant kennel clubs (English, American, German, etc.) gather up all the dogs that they think are Great Danes, assign them registration numbers, and after a certain number of years say OK, we're done, we're not letting any more outside dogs in, the breed is now "closed" and every registered Great Dane must be the offspring of other Great Danes.

So you can see that at no point along the line is there focused and intense inbreeding. Where you get true inbreeding (including the dangers of inbreeding depression) is when a breed is decimated AFTER the stud book is closed. For example, in Europe around WWII, millions of dogs were killed or starved to death. Many breeds, who had formerly had hundreds of members, survived only by hiding or secretly feeding a few precious dogs. Entire breeds were reconstituted from five or six or ten individuals, and whatever bad traits were in those six are typically still the ones we're battling today. In that case it becomes the breeders' job to select those individuals who do not show the bad traits, and try to build the breed back to overall health.

Quote:

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?
Great Danes are physically strong, immensely so; they are glorious, wonderful dogs and I miss them desperately. Their health problems are actually largely the result of the huge body; they age quickly, they are prone to immune disorders, they bloat, and their hearts give out. This has nothing to do with inbreeding and in fact my dogs were almost totally outcrossed (I had a mixture of US, Canadian, Italian/German, and Finnish/Norwegian). I just felt that I could no longer ethically produce puppies if I could not give new owners at least a reasonable assurance that their dogs would live a long life. I could (and did) prevent the occurrence of hip dysplasia, eye problems, even heart problems, but I could not stop them from aging so rapidly and could not help them avoid immune system problems or bloat.

Quote:
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.
Yow! I need to make a t-shirt with "Egotistical dog show nut" on the back.

As I tried to explain above, the reason we're so serious about dog shows is that a successful show dog is--or should be--the healthiest and soundest dog of all. For example, a show-quality corgi has a flat, well-muscled back. A non-show-quality corgi has a concave back. Which one will stay healthy longest? A show-quality Basset Hound has front feet that turn out only a tiny fraction, and big round tight strong paws. A poorly bred one has very flat, splayed feet that turn extremely to the right and the left. Which one will get arthritis first? And so on and so on. Beauty in form ALWAYS follows function, though it may depart from it for pure looks. So I absolutely enjoy the full white collar on Clue, because it makes her look stunning, even though she can't herd or run on that coat. But I would never say "Oh, that dog has a full white collar, but a stumpy neck--that makes him a better breeding partner for my bitches than that plain dog with the long arched neck."

Quote:
Back yard breeders might be making some of the greatest dogs for health, beauty and awesome temperament, IMO. Not all, but maybe some.
OK, let's address this. How would a backyard breeder prove that he was making healthy dogs? By doing generation after generation of health testing. Oh, whaddaya know, that's what show breeders do. How would he prove that he was consistently producing the most beautiful? He'd have to compete with his dogs somehow in a--gasp!--dog show. How would he prove that they have the best temperament? By competing them in field trail events--goodness, just like show breeders do!

If he's just SAYING he has these best things, or he can't reliably duplicate these best things, then every dog is a crapshoot as to whether or not it will be healthy, pretty, or sane. And in that case, if you don't need reliability and predictability, YOU SHOULD BE GOING TO A SHELTER, NOT PAYING A BAD BREEDER.

Quote:
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?
Again, you're several steps ahead of yourself. You must first prove that a particular breed HAS a small gene pool (many don't), that this small gene pool is a bad thing for the breed, and that there need to be more of that particular dog than there already are (for example, there just don't need to be that many Picardy Shepherds in the world, so the small population is just fine). If all three requirements were met, and there was no way for the breeders to fix things within the breed without using a different breed, then the breeders would at that point consider their options. This is EXACTLY what they do NOW, by the way.

Quote:
and no one mentioned my question I asked previously. How did wolves become chihuahuas?
Well, remember that show Shazam?

Seriously, to a certain extent they didn't. Chihuahuas ARE wolves. Genetically they're so close as to be considered the same species. Canids are incredibly plastic, genetically. That means they will easily and quickly change size and shape, even in just a few generations. Many of the things we think of as "doggy" are actually puppy-wolf traits, and as the gentlest wolves became companions to man--in effect, became eternal puppies--these traits (floppy ears, spots, shorter face, more hair, even short tails) became more and more prevalent. Humans love novelty, so it would be natural even ten thousand years ago to consider the spotted ones "better" than the solid ones, and enjoy breeding spotted to spotted (or smallest to smallest, or if someone in the next village had one with hair that looked like your puppy's hair, you'd breed them together; repeat ad nauseam). As soon as the jobs for dogs were differentiated--in other words, that some dogs were better at catching deer, but others were better at catching ducks--the very earliest landraces or types were developed.
thekimballs is offline  
#65 of 72 Old 06-27-2008, 12:43 PM
 
k9rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Looking for a few good goats...
Posts: 1,687
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekimballs View Post
Seriously, to a certain extent they didn't. Chihuahuas ARE wolves. Genetically they're so close as to be considered the same species. Canids are incredibly plastic, genetically. That means they will easily and quickly change size and shape, even in just a few generations. Many of the things we think of as "doggy" are actually puppy-wolf traits, and as the gentlest wolves became companions to man--in effect, became eternal puppies--these traits (floppy ears, spots, shorter face, more hair, even short tails) became more and more prevalent. Humans love novelty, so it would be natural even ten thousand years ago to consider the spotted ones "better" than the solid ones, and enjoy breeding spotted to spotted (or smallest to smallest, or if someone in the next village had one with hair that looked like your puppy's hair, you'd breed them together; repeat ad nauseam). As soon as the jobs for dogs were differentiated--in other words, that some dogs were better at catching deer, but others were better at catching ducks--the very earliest landraces or types were developed.
There was a series on PBS about this. It was on the show"Nature" and was very interesting. Explains what Joanna said exactly.
k9rider is offline  
#66 of 72 Old 06-27-2008, 03:51 PM
 
mcng's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 528
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
For me all the procedure with the respected breeders bothers me for some reason, picking wich dogs are good enought o reproduce i dont know..., it goes against my beliefs. Its like saying certain people shouldnt reproduce becouse they are not the tallest, healthier people.
mcng is offline  
#67 of 72 Old 06-27-2008, 06:54 PM
 
nd_deadhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
For me all the procedure with the respected breeders bothers me for some reason, picking wich dogs are good enought o reproduce i dont know..., it goes against my beliefs. Its like saying certain people shouldnt reproduce becouse they are not the tallest, healthier people.

But as dog OWNERS, we are responsible for their healthy and well-being - and this includes the health and well-being of the puppies they might produce. Dogs are pretty indiscriminate breeders on their own - they don't care if their mate has good genes, or a nasty temperment, or crappy bone structure. They only care if the female is in heat.

In the wild, natural selection/survival of the fittest tends to weed out unhealthy individuals, and they don't live to reproduce. In captivity this is not the case at all, and dogs that would never survive in the wild can live long lives. That is why we, as RESPONSIBLE pet owners, must carefully pick and choose our dogs' mates - if we choose to breed them at all.

For the record, many humans choose NOT to have babies, if they know they carry a genetic disease. Of course it's a choice they make for themselves, not for others. Dogs do not have the ability to make such decisions, because they are not capable of analyzing those facts.

If the chips are down, the buffalo is empty.

nd_deadhead is offline  
#68 of 72 Old 06-27-2008, 07:02 PM
 
Rhiannon Feimorgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Diagonally parked in parallel world
Posts: 4,998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcng View Post
For me all the procedure with the respected breeders bothers me for some reason, picking wich dogs are good enought o reproduce i dont know..., it goes against my beliefs. Its like saying certain people shouldnt reproduce becouse they are not the tallest, healthier people.
The thing is that the dog don't care. They don't have the same awarness of past and future. They don't have concepts like marrage. They form deeply bonded attachments with each other but the don't mate exclusivly. I agree that it wouldn't be right to tell people who they could or could not have children with or weather they could have children at all but if I knew that I carried a genetic disease and was likely to pass it on to my children I would think twice about having a biological child. I would likely adopt.

In the wild only the fittest wolves mate. The others are either too low status to be allowed to mate or are killed before they have a chance to mate. Only the genetic patterns that produce the healthiest and strongest animals are passed on. This is very simmilar to what breeders do only they are sometimes breeding for other traits than what a wolf needs.

Let there be beauty and strength, power and compassion, honor and humility, mirth and reverence within you.)0(
Rhiannon Feimorgan is offline  
#69 of 72 Old 06-27-2008, 07:03 PM - Thread Starter
 
SevenVeils's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lurking in my Lerkim
Posts: 6,864
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Another thing to consider, is that we are not talking about wild dogs. We're talking about dogs who live with us. So if our dog breeds, it is because we allowed it to. Therefore we are responsible for the creation of more dogs.

I don't think it's a bad thing for us to make sure that the dogs that we bring into the world have the best chance at a healthy, pain free life.

It's not about picking who is 'good enough' to reproduce. It is all about trying to ensure that we are not responsible for the creation of animals who will live a life of pain or other misery.
SevenVeils is offline  
#70 of 72 Old 06-27-2008, 11:00 PM
 
majazama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: mountains of bc
Posts: 4,664
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Do any of you have links to back up what you are saying about purebred dogs NOT being inbred to achieve their desired "look"?
majazama is offline  
#71 of 72 Old 06-28-2008, 12:03 AM
 
thekimballs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 5,724
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Logically, the burden of proof is actually on you, because you made the assertion, but for the sake of being clear...

First you need to define what you mean by inbreeding. Brother-sister? Parent-offspring? Grandparent? How about distant cousins? Let's go back to the Middle Ages--to avoid being called inbreeding, would you have to go find a dog from a distant village, even though the humans were marrying cousins? Without a clear definition of what you're asking me to prove or disprove, it's impossible for me to do it accurately.

I can tell you the history of my own breed, if you want:

In England in the Bronze Age (about 5,000 years ago) there were the very first herding dogs, which were long-legged and probably longish-haired, living with the Picts, one of the original inhabitants of the UK. Around 1000 BC the Celts arrive in England and move into Wales as well--they're middle Europeans from what we now call France and Switzerland and those areas. Not as far north as Germany or Scandinavia.

The Celts bring with them ancient dachshund-type dogs that they found useful in hunting. These dogs had the short legs that we still see in Dachshunds. The Celts breed their Teckels to the ancient tall herding dogs (so you see two breeds being used--the gene pool widens) and come up with a type of extremely useful short-range herder who doesn't get hurt by too much and can corner instantly on the rocks. And all over the place in Wales these dogs are produced (because they turn out to be so useful) and Cardiganshire makes the very best ones and becomes known for these very clever little dogs.

Then swooping down from the north come the Vikings. The Vikings also had dealings with and fights with the Celts back in Europe, so somewhere along the line the type of dogs the Vikings really like (the arctic or spitz type--wolf-colored with prick ears and a curly tail) gets short legs too. So when the Vikings arrive in Wales around 700 AD, they bring with them their own very useful small herding dogs, who look like little wolves with short legs. These little herding dogs also have another mutation--they are often born without tails. The tails that do exist curl up over the back when the dog moves or is excited.

When the Vikings settle down and farm in Wales, they like the Cardiganshire dogs, but they think they can be improved, so they breed their little short-legged herders to those dogs, and they get a new set of short-legged herders that share the characteristics of both groups; they are smaller and more perky than the rather easy-going Cardiganshire dogs--and they're often born without tails--but they come in interesting colors and don't look so much like wolves anymore.

Then the Vikings (now thorougly interbred with the Picts/Celts), use their very useful little herding dogs to bring cattle to market from Wales to England. And the owners of some small short-haired terriers say hey, those are very useful little dogs. Go send Bess and Mary, who are both in heat, to see if those very useful little dogs will find them attractive. And so you end up with ANOTHER population of short-legged very useful little herding dogs, these ones with distinct terrier characteristics.

And these rather isolated original groups remain useful, and also pretty, so they are bred rather consistently (with, as would have been normal back then) occasional or even frequent contributions from anybody else's useful herding dogs, until the Kennel Club (UK, not US) decides that they are distinct enough that they should be called a breed, somewhere in the 1920s.

So we have these original breeds 5K years ago
Dachshund Tall herder Wolf-like dog

Dachshund + tall herder becomes the Cardigan Welsh Corgi.

Dachshund + wolf-like dog becomes the Swedish Vallhund

Swedish Vallhund + Cardigan becomes the Pembroke Welsh Corgi

Pembroke Welsh Corgi + Manchester Terrier becomes the ********** Heeler

So now we have four short-legged very useful little herders, and we still have the originals--the Dachshund, the tall wolf-colored dog from the north (probably close to what we'd call an Elkhound), the Manchester Terrier.

In other words, the breeds were created by doing OUTCROSSING (movement of genetic material between breeds, in this case) and were not further refined from only one existing breed.
thekimballs is offline  
#72 of 72 Old 06-29-2008, 03:04 AM
 
Silvercrest79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mid-Michigan
Posts: 1,035
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Of_60 View Post
Ain't that the truth.

Humans + birth = icky. Dogs + birth = cool and cute.
but sadly true

treehugger.gif Alisaynovax.gif,intactlact.gifUsed to be a fly-by-nursing1.gifcd.giffamilybed2.gif, SAHM to three slinggirl.gif, all by ribboncesarean.gif, then they grew up. mecry.gif

Now I am a WOHM, college student, single mama. praying.gif to be belly.gifbfinfant.gifcd.giffamilybed1.gif, buddamomimg1.png, to a littlebabyf.gifagain someday. stillheart.gif 

Silvercrest79 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off