Ah, remember when we were told that Wiston Cap had nothing wrong with him and that there have been no other popular sires in the border collie?
Well, Christopher Landauer analyzes Wiston Cap’s contribution to the pervasiveness of collie eye anomaly in border collies.
He also finds that there are more popular sires in the bloodline besides Wiston Cap, who isn’t even the number one sire.
Please note that he’s not saying that the disease originated with that dog.
What he’s saying that such overuse of this dog has made it possible for that disease to be pervasive in the border collie.
Here are the OptiGen numbers on the pervasiveness of CEA in the various collie breeds.
Compared to North American shelties and Australian shepherds, CEA is a bigger problem in the border collie than one might suppose.
The popular sire effect exists in border collies, and it has been detrimental to them.
These are simple facts.
No screeds can change facts.
Only listening to evidence objectively can help us change things.
***
Please note that I am not selling anyone’s dogs on this blog.
Christopher is a breeder, but he is selling the dogs on their own merit.
All I am doing is promoting his ideas and calculations on this blog.
These calculations simply shatter the myths that trial dogs are inherently healthy because they are trialled and that border collies are not subject to the most-used sire effect.
These are just myths.
I would have expected this from the AKC fanatics.
But I did not expect such denialism from working dog people.
See earlier posts.
- Intellectual honesty on the effects of trials and shows (the legendary post!)
- The Numbers
I’m sure the first thing Donald McCaig is going to say when he reads this is that it’s bullshit and that we can’t know that Wiston Cap was a carrier.
Nevermind about that whole numbers and science stuff. If he can’t understand it, it must not exist.
Then, like he did for my Barbie Collie post, he’ll probably question who ran the numbers, because he’s never heard of this before.
Then there will be a rush to defame this person. They must be LIES! All those test results LIES! A conspiracy by the show people to defame poor old Wiston Cap.
Count down to @$%t storm.
Oh, and round two will consist of a PR campaign to rehabilitate CEA as a “minor” disease, a “mild” disease, and anecdotes about all those dogs that get along just fine being affected.
Nevermind that the ABCA donated money to the research to find a DNA test for it. Nevermind that the ISDS and ABCA enacted deregistration protocols. Nevermind that the USBCHA required eye tests for every dog running in the finals.
It’s no ebola, that’s for sure, but it’s not coincidence that the DNA/health committee used to be called the Hip/Eye committee and if the club has taken a stand against anything, it’s been CEA.
Sad that they can’t take that next step and realize where it comes from and why.
But Scottie, don’t you know that CEA is only caused by those evil show breeders?
(I would argue, admittedly, that in most of it’s forms CEA *is* a mild disease*- but given the lesser number of CEA carriers in BCs compared to my fluffy-type collies, there’s no reason anyone should ever have to be compromising on CEA to avoid other problems.)
Not doing anti-AKC screeds anymore.
It’s too easy a target.
And most people know about the AKC problems.
Very few people consider it coming from this side at all.
The reason why Christopher looked into it is not because it’s a terrible disease, but because of how it’s inherited.
Because it is inherited as a simple recessive, there are actual calculations that can be done to predict that effect on a population.
The calculations are based upon the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium principle: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/H/Hardy_Weinberg.html
Chris you are ruining my illusions – thank you. I had become so very disillusioned with dog shows and dog show people, that I mostly dropped the whole show thing before I reached the point where I was able to raise dogs.
I can tell you from my own many experiences that dog show people can be very mean about that nasty belief that only they should be allowed to own a pregnant female or an intact dog. And they are so wrong, with as inbred, and often unhealthy as their dogs are, their inbred stock is exactly what we don’t need any more of.
I had hoped that field events would be better. But I found that, near where I lived, the events near me that I went to, were mostly filled with show people who bred dogs to get more show type dogs. They were just there to play – which is fine, except that I was looking for dog people, not show people, so I was mostly disappointed.
I did find a few dog people, and guess what? The show people wouldn’t socialize with them at the events. The two groups hardly spoke even at lunch time.
I had hoped that perhaps a more rural area, a more rural event would attract dog people, not show people. It was not so much what you or Scotty wrote on Intellectual Honesty that changed my mind, but what blckgldn-n-labmix wrote. I no longer believe that there is much chance that a show person (and I now include all competitive doggie events as a type of show) will ever see things as a dog person does, they simply aren’t dog people – they are show people.
Cats don’t fly, and pideons don’t have kittens. We are what we are. Show people use dogs in their shows/sports but they aren’t usually dog people. And, it has been my experience, many times over, that show people do not like pet people or dog people. They seem to actively HATE dog people and those who want to produce good pet puppies for families. Instead they produce more puppies geared for dog shows, not for pet families (yet they advertise their show bred/ show rejected puppies as “pet quality” so families wanting a good pet will buy them – which I think is so very dishonest!
It is like different religions. As stupid as trying to turn a rabbi into a preist or a preist into an iman – people who are rooted in their faith should not argue with others – it is a waste of time, and just gets the other people angry.
You think that show people can view dogs from a different view point, but if they switch viewpoints, then they will see themsleves as OTHER people see them, and that is unflattering to them. Inflated egos don’t want to glimpse the truth about themselves – that they are just regular people, not some special eugenic elite above everybody else, so much better than other people, that other people should not be allowed to even breed dogs.
No matter what the original intent WAS, aren’t many shows, human beauty pagents, quilting shows, flower shows, really magnets for people who desire to win so that they can feel “mine is better than yours”. Ego.
Many many Americans have pet dogs – but they never show their dogs, and they think that dog beauty pagents are weird. Only a tiny fraction of dog owners show their dogs. The regular dog owners need their own get-togethers – if they can keep the show people from trying to take over and from trying to convert normal people to dog show beliefs.
My feelings towards competitve dog show people are not very tolerant this morning – but then I haven’t be met with much tolerance from them, certainly not welcomes!
Well, I’ll add this as an observation. “Dog People” don’t care about “purity” to anywhere near the same level as “show people.”
Just look at how hip it has become to adopt a mutt from the shelter and how designer dog breeds (mutts billed as purebreds) sprung up and caught fire.
The word is getting out that purity in a dog isn’t like purity in your child’s aspirin or purity in your water. It’s losing value as a selling point and a requirement.
And this is a good thing.
The Dalmatian thing, total stubbornness in the face of a solution, shows that yes, show people will never be dog people. A dog person would say that a 99.999% Dalmatian is a Dalmatian, and that it’s worth the “impurity” to fix an endemic problem that is crippling the breed.
A Dog person would be disgusted. A Dog person would put health above a bogus principle.
“It was not so much what you or Scotty wrote on Intellectual Honesty that changed my mind, but what blckgldn-n-labmix wrote. I no longer believe that there is much chance that a show person (and I now include all competitive doggie events as a type of show) will ever see things as a dog person does, they simply aren’t dog people – they are show people.”
Good Lord, what did I say?
Is it about breeding EIC carriers?
Or something else?
Both of my dogs come from dual-purpose kennels and have CH/MH sires. GOOD show people ARE dog people.
You should really attend a few retriever events before you pass judgment.
Wait–for some reason your post just sunk in.
I’m not a dog person?
Huh. Funny, that.
Thanks for the info. I’ll re-order my life accordingly.
To blckgldn-n-labmix: If you had said that you were 20 years old, and had one dog, then I would be more willing to explain. However, you claim to be a pointed AKC judge at 3 levels… not surprising then is it, I expect better from you? An a teacher too?
Personally, I wonder if you are a troll? Maybe even Scotty’s ex-friend haunting his blog under an old second alias????
Shame on you, for writing that it is okay to breed genetic disease carriers if they are good at winning in events you judge!
And please, quit red pencilling my comments as if I were 8 years old, and you my teacher! I made good points, you disected them, and mixed them with garbage, then re-posted them. If you had added intelligent thought to what I said, that would be different.
I have trouble believing that you believe the stuff you have posted! Don’t bother reading my comments, you didn’t understand Jess (or pretended not to), and you won’t understand me either.
As for my many typos, yeah, sorry. My fingers know an older keyboard, and they automatically reach wrong on this smaller one. Also, this is a smaller screen, and I can barely read what I typed to proofread it. So laugh that I don’t read fine point well, and that I use to type well enough that my fingers could do it out of habit. But in time, I will adjust better, but you will still be the type of person who thinks that it is okay to breed carriers who do well at your events.
On the up note – you will be happy to know that I have absolutely no intention of going to your trials and criticing your performance there. Please quit red pencilling my comments. And please, do not breed dogs…
Your understanding of genetics is flawed. Please take a biology course. If you had even a hint of half of a clue, you would see the danger inherent in your position.
The only typo I pointed out was “trails” for “trials”; it is often an error of understanding, not a typo, or I wouldn’t have bothered.
I tried to explain a situation clearly, seeing that you knew nothing about it. If that’s dissecting, than so be it. I’m sorry you do not have the background or interest to bother to follow my comments, which I spent a good deal of time on.
You are not only ignorant, you refuse to become knowledgeable. Damn shame.
Additionally, if you would like to know who I am, you may inquire. If you’re trolling around with puppy-millers to find out who I am, you’re also creepy as well as ignorant.
Otherwise, you would have no idea that I had posted under flattie-n-labbie in the past, which is no secret. I changed on a whim as a joke.
Scottie, if I’m a troll, please block me. I’m a little sick of amateur hour anyway.
And knowing that I’m a teacher? Did you go back and read all my posts to find that clue? Or is someone giving you information behind the scenes? And if so, why? And why bring it up–to let me know you know something about me?
Leave me alone.
To blckgldn-n-labmix: Whoa. Settle down. I didn’t mean to scare you like that, sorry if I did.
We disagree about the beliefs we have. Of course I think I’m right and you think your right – do you know anyone who post their beliefs but thinks that they are wrong and your right?
If you didn’t want me to know that you are a teacher, you shouldn’t have mentioned “grading papers” when you signed off the night before. Who, but a teacher grades papers? What do you think people will conclude that you are (or are claiming to be) when you mention grading papers?
I didn’t check you out (maybe I should have?), you gave yourself away. All I did was start reading the blog and post comments – it has nothing to do with you.
All of my comments on the post “Intellectual Honesty” were from what I read on that post and the comments there, I hadn’t read through this blog seeking you out, and you have my posted word that I have no interest at all in finding you.
I’m not creepy – unless you find that my changing into a bat after dark, and running with a werewolf pack is “creepy”? (Just joking, don’t freak out, I’m a normal person).
I was a bit curious to know why you believe that if I went around with “puppy-millers”, that they could tell me about you?
I really really am not interest in you – although if you’re a buff dude with nude photos, I might be willing to visit your blog for a peep – if you have a blog. (Just keeping it light).
I just started posting here, I don’t know your history. If you hadn’t mentioned your previous name (here on comments on THIS post) I wouldn’t have known it.
But since you did mention it, and since you did pull my chain, I did (after being growled at), google it.
Being the nice person that I usually am, I must say that parents often look up their children’s teachers online, and that mentioning training dogs by electric shocks is going to upset those parents, especially when if/when you seem to approve of the practise, and when/if it reads like you might have used this method on your dogs.
Remember, that when you are training their children, parents want to know your training methods – and electo-shock training methods make the combination of school teacher and competitive bird dog/ retriever trainer – well, the sort of thing that might worry a parent.
I mean, even parent who might consider calling that TV dog breaker if they had a dangerous DOG, might have different feelings about letting him use those methods to teach their CHILDREN in school.
However, plenty of grandparents did go to schools where children were whacked with a ruler is they mispelled a word or mis-added numbers (that ruler hurts!) and so, of course, such people are going to wonder about what training methods you use for your dogs, and their kids?
Not really a problem for me, and you probably don’t teach any of my relatives or dogs, so don’t freak out, I don’t really care what you do in your own life –
but here, please don’t copy from my comments or reply to them. I only wrote this to help soothe you – I pictured you worried about someone so crafty that they can guess you’re a teacher from reading about your “grading papers” and who can figure out that you trial your retrievers from your writing that you do.
Get a good nights sleep and go easy on the coffee.
I’m with blckgldn on this. I’ve met many real, authentic, skilled, and knowledgeable dog people that participate in any of a myriad of organized activities with their dogs. This over a period of nearly 60 years (yeah, I started young). Even to begin to name them would take up far too much space.
And if it wasn’t for “the fancy” that folks like to denigrate, we wouldn’t even have the Canine Health Foundation,OFA (built on a GRCA plan by John Olin, a retriever man), DERF (founded by Dolly Trauner), the Golden Retriever Foundation (which just this summer raised some $300,000 to help fund research on cancer in dogs — all dogs, not just purebreds), numbers of other charitable organizations formed by dog clubs, the philanthropy of people like Mrs. Geraldine Rockefeller Dodge, Maxwell Riddle, and many many others. Read the lists of donors and founders for any veterinary college: there are many, many “members of the fancy” on those lists. Look at the lists of ‘rescue’ organizations in the names of breed clubs– particularly those of the Yankee Golden Retriever Club, and the Delaware Valley GRC. They are models that more shelters could emulate.
Yes, there are jerks and dimwits and “bad apples” in the dog world. Name me any sector of human activity that doesn’t have them.
shoulda proofread. That ‘s CERF, not DERF !
That’s up there with my “golfish” yesterday and my “Laundauer” on this post. ;)
I don’t know that you need to get defensive about the fancy here. My constant refrain is that the largest group treating “the Fancy” like the Great Satan, is itself guilty of the same sins. Different goal, but same tools. And it’s the tools that have messed up the dogs.
The actual research that I am basing my analysis on comes from INDIVIDUALS doing the job that the Institutions should have done.
Individuals do have the power to make a difference here. It was one guy who bought all the ISDS stud books and scanned every one of them in that has given us a lot of the breed analysis.
And it’s one woman, who designed an online pedigree database and decided to append functionality on to it that will predict genetic traits like coat color and disease expression that has given us the probability that a long dead dog was a carrier or affected for a disease.
The AKC/KC/ABCA/ISDS did not do this. Although they should have. They could have. Individuals did.
And since these groups are not disclosing the reality, I am trying to play my part to diseminate good and smart information that people can use and weigh and hopefully change the culture.
Because although individuals do have the power to make a difference, it WAS the collective…. bet it the Fancy or the Sheepy, that made the popular sire effect happen.
That was a part of the culture. That was a group effort. And while there might be individuals in that group, the group as a whole does deserve to take the credit and blame for their collective actions, especially when those group actions are so harmful.
I refuse to do anti-AKC posts anymore because of those reasons and because I find most what one can write about the various problems in the AKC dogs tedious and boring.
I think I’ve said enough about Sussex spaniels, for example.
It can often sound like folks are bashing the entire ‘show fancy’, when in reality, we all know people who are doing the right thing in various breeds, even in the ring. But the overall culture, as has been said, is rotten. There are always good people doing their best in a bad situation… but that doesn’t mean the situation itself can’t be criticized. If someone isn’t part of the problem, then they shouldn’t feel attacked; they’re not the ones being complained about here.
And personally, I feel most of the problems started long ago and are not the fault of most people today… though many people seem to be unable to question or challenge the traditions and rules they were taught by their mentors who may or may not have been right or balanced in their values.
To M.R.S. – Mrs. Dodge bred dogs in an era when this knowledge had not yet been discovered. She can NOT be faulted for NOT knowing what the distant future would bring. I believe that she was a dog person, and if she were alive today, she would breed sheppoodles, and they would be popular, healthy, and trainable.
You probably have your opinion of what she would be doing with the new DNA information if she were alive today – but I don’t think that she would ignore the studies and breed affecteds, carriers, or inheritantly lame dogs!
As for funding research about mutations in canine DNA? If people (perhaps the fancy???) hadn’t rushed to breed to the dogs that were winning in their $+#):! game, then would we have these inbred problems that ‘need’ to be studied?
You have commented that you believe that it is okay to breed affecteds. Please do NOT try to win me over by putting your name next to historical legends in dog breeding. I know the difference between now and yesteryear.
There is no reason for us to argue – we will NOT agree. You don’t have to read my comments, just skip them, you wont like them, and you probably wouldn’t really want to read my opinion of a dog breeder who advocates breeding affecteds.
Think about it this way:
We can easily trace collie eye anomaly through pedigrees.
But what about those disorders that are very hard to trace, that aren’t simple dominants and simple recessives?
What about those that do not have genetic tests?
The reason why this disorder was chosen is for its empirical value– not because of its nastiness or whether it can be managed.
The fact that Wiston Cap is now believed to be a carrier very much surprised me.
I doubledare you to do the same research with Jack Russel Terriers…
:-)
Now that would be tough.
But they don’t have the same trial culture as border collies and this desire to breed an elite.
I would be surprised if JRT’s were really bad.
I do know that the much maligned puddin’- type JRT’s that are not registered are really more or less like what border collies are claimed to be.
They are really genetically diverse.
Willie and his housemate, Madeleine, are both pretty genetically distinct. Madeleine actually reminds me of a smooth-coated border terrier.
Madeleine has inherited glaucoma, which is something I didn’t expect.
If some JRT person would like to do these calculations, it would be very interesting.
Well, I’ll point out that Paddy hasn’t done it. He always has to turn to other breeds with an actual working culture to make his points.
Really now, there are thousands of working and sport and show Border Collie blogs.
The Gun dogs have tons of blogs and websites (and hell, outlet stores) to go along with their working culture.
Much smaller and/or more rare breeds have bloggers in our circle that discuss working culture.
But why is there really only one working terrier blog in the vein of Paddy? I imagine there must be more, where are they? I’m sure that there might even be blogs for people who do earth trials… but we’ve read Paddy denounce them as unauthentic, etc.
I think he’s kind of like a prophet without a flock.
I mean the guy wrote the book on Working American Terriers, and DOESN’T KNOW A BREEDER WHERE HE CAN GET ONE and has to ask on his blog.
What?
I’m leery of JRTCA dogs.
I knew two that were so game and hard to handle that they could never be kept in the suburbs.
One got sent to West-by-Gawd to kill groundhogs for a living.
Most people who just want a pet, should consider other dogs besides JRTCA dogs. If you want a JRT, there are plenty of other options.
Same with border collies.
They are just too much dog.
Same with working-type retrievers.
When people breed pet JRT’s, they are working on making them more biddable and easier going.
I know two JRT’s from the same breeder– Willie and Spike. Spike is like a golden in JRT form.
And they are very good dogs for the family.
Willie would make a great fly-ball dog. He listens very well.
It’s a damn shame that my uncle’s in Romania.
We could discuss this a little bit.
Inbreeding coefficients:
http://www.therealjackrussell.com/jrtca/registry.php
I don’t think there’s anything there, but I could be wrong.
http://www.terrierman.com/inbredthinking.htm
Very little outcrossing.
16 percent is a bit high.
But I don’t know the mechanism by which anyone would be rewarded for breeding so tightly in those dogs.
I just don’t see it.
Did you see this: http://www.stilhope.com/heritabilitysummary.htm
Might be relevant.
That’s interesting.
I’ve thought that pointers may have had some role in developing the border collie herding behavior.
I guess not….
I breed Belgian Sheepdogs and I’ve been in herding trials since 1980. I like to think that I try very hard to select for healthy, sound dogs that happen to be good at herding. I also like to think I’ve had some success at it. A lot of people “into” dogs are pretty ignorant as to genetics, mode of inheritance and even pedigrees. I had a rather heated arguement recently with a friend about a dog that was a grandfather to some pups with a genetic defect. The grandmother was a known carrier. My friend believed that the grandfather was identical to another dog that sired a litter with this genetic defect. It was a rather frustrating conversation.
As for the article this: http://www.stilhope.com/heritabilitysummary.htm — it doesn’t address herding dogs that don’t use BC type methods (that is, upright, looseyed, closeworking dogs). To my knowledge, no one has yet seriously studied the heredity of HERDING vice “eye”, “clap” and other BC specific traits. Be nice if they did. ASCA actually years ago seemed to be studying frequency, intensity and location of grip in herding, but I’ve yet to see any scientific study.
One might despair about dogs and trials/shows and breeding in general, but I suspect that dogs will survive this, as they’ve survived over the millenia under our control. For every “intense” JRT, there will be those who want and breed for a less intense JRT. Same for Goldens — from the very intent dogs to the “happy to be with you as you hobby hunt” to the “happier in the house” dogs — there will be those that want one vice the other and there will be those breeding for those characteristics.
I’m hopeful. DNA may make it impossible to stay in denial in many cases. It may force registries to allow “new blood”.
The trick, I think, is to keep the dogs as sound and healthy and capable as we can until that time comes when we have more control of what genes are or aren’t in a given dog.
Peggy Richter.
“The trick, I think, is to keep the dogs as sound and healthy and capable as we can until that time comes when we have more control of what genes are or aren’t in a given dog.”
YES. This. A million times this.
We can NOT retain what genetic diversity is left in dogs with the popularity of the current system. The current system is dominated by people who breed dogs to win at competitive events. Mostly they want to buy puppies from the winners, and breed to the top winning studs. The inbreeding, and loss of unique gens will continue, unless something is done to end breeding dogs for competitve events.
It is good to talk about the problems, but what about possible answers – ideas that might halt this problem before most of the various genes in dogs are gone?
The simplest answer would be for the current system to go bankrupt and no new system to take it’s place. People could try to return dog breeding to what it was – everybody could be a breeder, and everybody could breed whatever dogs they liked –
but there would be no bossy heirarchy leading people to all chose the same dogs, wheather that be dogs breed to conform to structural plans (that are so often flawed or out of date) or to conform to trials (which often set up people with no sheep to buy sheep so that they can enter, or to get people who don’t hunt to buy hunting dogs just to be able to enter them in events meant to help produce better hunting dogs).
The system causes problems: we are losing unique canine genes, dogs are losing genetic diversity and their genetic health, people are breeding dogs to use them to win in competitions – not breeding them to be good pets and good community members (but they are SELLING those puppies to families wanting a pet – with only a few of those puppies being sold for the purpose they were bred for).
Worse, some people are getting obsessive about their dog hobbies to the point that it is negatively afffecting them, and their families, not just the communities that they live in. Like, did you watch Fatal Attractions on Animal Planet – the one where it was about people who became obsessed with keeping ‘pet’ venomous snakes? Don’t expect it to end well, because cuddling and petting venomous snakes just doesn’t work, they are dangerous and not loving – or at least not loving enough not to kill you without reason.
This points out that, like people taken over by a cult, people who fall under the lure of the showing culture or who fall under the influence of the competitive dog events may need profession help to escape and lead normal lives. (And yes, raising flowers for shows can become an obsession, so can TV – but those don’t mess up (literally) your home, your family structure, and the genetics of a common and valuable species.0
If the current system’s problems can be changed, then could it become a good force in our culture?
It is my belief that to do so, it must quit giving ribbons or awards. If for insurance reasons (to fall under “sports”), it must judge winners, then it should only post who won weeks later, and only on their web site – and without comments. The goal being to tone down “winning” as much as possible without losing the insurance rate.
Or they could switch to just online shows and online judges, but they would loose the RV tax offer thing, and they would still have to down play the “breed to winners”, and try to guide the game into fun, not furious competition – maybe hire a ‘shrink’ to moderate the game?
Another thing which would be very helpful would be to have rank listings shows the dog’s wins as if it were entered in decathalons. Like:
Ch Tall Grey Mountain’s Spot of Low Purple Waters
EVENTS:
1. SHOW – champion
2. OBEDIENCE – none
3. DOG PARKING – failed twice, permanately disqualified.
4. Carting – none.
5. Sledding – Permanately disqualified for fighting.
6. Duck Retrieving – entered 27 times, no wins.
7. Herding – 1 win.
8. Agility – entered 1 time. No score.
Health Tests: none recorded with permanate ID.
Inbred CO: 25%.
Number of litters registered 128.
Number of indivudual puppies registered: 582.
Relatives with recorded health tests (permate IDs):
1. Hip dysplasia: 2 offspring tested, 2 good.
2. AXYZ disease: 75 offspring tested, no affecteds, no carriers. (% of AXYZ affecteds in this breed = .009)
…and so on. What NOT to do, is to emphasis the wins of offspring, especially without listing all the faults, failures, and non-participation of the majority of those offspring.
Oh, and before anyone complains about changes – if the changes are done right, you would enjoy the improved system more, not less.
Of course, if the system goes bankrupt, there might not be any system to love or hate until other systems start up and get going.
Ha.
Comments here haven’t been this fun since I got called a draft dodger for saying pit bulls were a dumb choice for a city pet.
More on topic, a champion field trial lab got eaten by an alligator here in FL last week. It was on the local news, but I can’t seem to find the story’s link. I’ll fwd if I can find it.
Bill: Instead of dodging the draft, you could put weather-stripping around the door, or buy one of those snake like plush animals to block the wind and cold air.
I don’t much care about pit bulls, but I don’t like loose dogs in towns or cities. Except in towns in Mexico and places where they don’t have any breeds of dogs, just strays who have lived for generations by begging food, then their loose dogs are okay – because the mean ones starved.
Only the nicest survived. With that type of selection, after 100 years of it, there aren’t human-aggressive dogs. Though there are probably imported breeds of dogs south of the border now – ruining the good street dogs.
I mean, what IS more important, that a dog trots with extended reach and drive, or that it has good manners, and does NOT chase bikes, kids, cars, cats or chickens? That the dog’s coat is shiny or that the dog plays nice with the kids?
What is dumb is that there is an “a” in “instead” which, sound it out, has no reason to be there, since the “e” is short, which phonetically makes the word “in-steed” meaning “in a horse, or other riding animal”, in which case I presume they mean worms, because otherwise, I don’t like to picture that.
And why, when you bring something “in” through the “port” would anyone decide that it is “iMported” instead of “iNported” especially when people usually say “inported”?