Natural History

Posted in animal welfare, dog breeding | 20 Comments

20 Responses

1. on December 23, 2011 at 3:29 am margot

   greyhounds? showgreys look like this:
   http://katrin-und-joachim.de/2011/10/03/raduno-dautunno-in-padenghe-sul-gardait-2102011/#more-2674

   and it is similar at whippets, deerhounds, irish wolfhounds, salukis, …

   show is bad for all dog breeds!

   
   
2. on December 23, 2011 at 2:48 pm Peggy Richter

   The saving grace for many of the breeds is the fairly good % of those who are “into” performance. They may not be the same as the conformation folk, but they usually provide a “break” on those who would go too far. I wish Belgian Sheepdogs were as pushed as the Belgian Tervuren to have titles at “both ends”. In terms of % of dogs registered to titling, Belgian Tervuren outdo Border Collies in terms of the % of dogs that herd. Are they “perfect”? no. There is a strong push to collie like heads, coats and straight sholders to get that “conformation” image in profile. And yes, epilepsy is a problem in Belgians. What we all need is a good working registry that also includes health — because competition in working can ALSO drive exaggeration. People just don’t seem to be able to avoid exaggerations when competition is involved. The more competitive (only ONE winner), the more the drive to be “that one”.
   Peggy Richter

   
   
3. on December 23, 2011 at 6:53 pm Jackal73

   Holding the Bernese mountain dog up as a “healthy example” of a dog that looks just as it once did is… fairly amusing. Not that I’m fond of exaggerated breeding myself, but the Berner is a horrendous counter example. Beautiful dogs, lovely temperaments, and absolutely riddled with disease, particularly various cancers, due to an extreme genetic bottleneck the breed passed through in the early 1900’s. The average lifespan is a mere 7-8 years, and many are dead by five, though some live as long as 10.

   
   
   • on December 23, 2011 at 6:56 pm retrieverman

     That breed is a tumor factory. I think the Greater Swiss is just as bad.

     I didn’t say I agreed with everything in the video.

     
     
     • on December 23, 2011 at 10:57 pm Jackal73

       The whole Sennenhund complex is fairly bad for health, so far as I know. All four breeds nearly disappeared, and were bred back from a very limited number of individuals (16 for Berners, 11 (? I think) for the Entelbucher, etc.). Instead of being sensible and outcrossing to related dogs, or others that could improve genetic diversity while still preserving key features of looks and temperament they just interbred what was left. When numbers are that low everything ends up too nearly related.

       I didn’t think you necessarily agreed with the video, just that I had a problem with the video’s assertion that less extreme looks correspond to health and function.

       Unrelated, but I now know why I wasn’t receiving notifications of responses to my comments here even though I had signed up for them — there’s an additional sign up page that needs to be tripped via my webmail that never showed up. Now it did, with a complete record of everything I ever subscribed to, which is not so helpful after the fact, but should hopefully work going forward. If other people complain of similar issues you might want to advise them of that. It’s not that things are being directed to the spam filter, but rather that there’s a separate interactive sign up page for wordpress which isn’t being triggered for some reason.

       
       
       • on December 23, 2011 at 11:05 pm retrieverman

         There has been a wordpress update within the past two weeks, and things are screwy all around.

         My spam filter sometimes eats comments, and I sometimes forget to look for them.

         Now, you can’t sign up for RSS anymore. I don’t know why, but that’s over.

         
         
         • on December 23, 2011 at 11:10 pm Jackal73

           So because they *broke* it it works for me now? :D

           O.K., not going to argue. I just appreciate getting the notifications, as I don’t always remember to go look everywhere I’ve been online to see if there’s been more conversation in my absence.

           
           
4. on December 24, 2011 at 7:39 am Chris Miele

   I think that the video is dealing with phenotype, not genotype. Dogs are a microcosm of our environment and subject to what we do to our planet.
   And I cant say that I agree with genetic diversity in relation to purebred dogs. Let me introduce you to my herd of deer who live here, proliferate, are healthy and never travel more than 10-15 miles from where they were born. There is a difference between genetic diversity and natural selection.
   I believe the video is meant to be the starting point for some serious discussion on man’s managed breedings. If we can’t get dog breeding down right, what does that say about the future? Perhaps we dont need genetic diversity (which I believe is a buzzword for the ARistas) but rather discovering the right criteria for doing a breeding.

   
   
   • on December 24, 2011 at 1:32 pm Jackal73

     Yes, and phenotype is not a reliable indicator of either genotype or genetic health.

     Let me introduce you to my herd of deer who live here, proliferate, are healthy and never travel more than 10-15 miles from where they were born.

     Yes, but what genetic base did they start with? And how long have they been isolated? And what is the plasticity in their genome? You can have a very small, isolated breeding population that persists over many generations and is healthy, because it starts from a very diverse base and/or is highly plastic. I.e. the population will retain a great deal of diversity in the genotype (if not in the phenotype, because not everything is visibly expressed). You can also have a population — whether or not it is small — that has a very limited genetic set, that appears perfectly healthy because it is adapted to a given niche, and functions well in that niche, and the stock is broad enough that you don’t see obvious issues from inbreeding such as disease or inbreeding depression or developmental abnormalities. But when something changes in the environment the population with a low amount of genetic diversity will be much more vulnerable than a diverse population, because it does not have the inherent variability to adapt to the changed circumstances. A good example of this is the Tasmanian Devil, which may well be wiped out by a contagious cancer due to the species’ lack of genetic diversity.

     Granted, some species apparently manage to do just fine with a startling small array of genetic diversity (some reptiles are virtual clones), but in general genetic diversity — particularly in mammals — is highly desirable if one wishes to ensure long term viability and survival.

     Saying “oh, a relatively long lived organism in an isolated population by me is just fine, so genetic diversity isn’t necessary” is a conclusion based on the tiniest snapshot of evidence, and doesn’t have any indicators for long term well being at all. Assuming your deer really are isolated, and would remain so, you’d need to assess their well being based on genetic fitness after at least a century to have a real gauge. There’s also the question of what species they are, because each parent species (and sub populations thereof) carry their own diversity and unique adaptations.

     I agree that dog breeding is being conducted inappropriately, because it’s concerned primarily with exaggerating single phenotypic characteristics, and ignores the health of the entire organism long term. “Genetic diversity” may be a buzz word for Animal Rights types, but that’s because it has real applications in wildlife conservation and management. The so called “right criteria” for breeding — to the best of scientific knowledge, which is a changing point as knowledge of genetics and phenotypic expression and interplay with the environment is concerned — is not something that the current dog fancy wants to hear, because it doesn’t involve making cute puppies that people want to buy. I’ve already taken up far too much comment space here, but if you look at how zoos and conservation organizations breed endangered animals, you will have a much better model for the breeding of any domestic animal.

     
     
5. on December 24, 2011 at 10:09 am Peggy Richter

   as herding dogs, the Sennenhund could be crossed with Rottweilers or even St. Bernards (the former retain more herding function by far). It really wouldn’t take too many crosses to increase genetic “diversity”. The trick would be to cross with a healthy dog and not to introduce issues which occur with Rottweilers. The problem with many of the “purebred” registered dogs in AKC /FCI is that the founding dogs generally are a very small number (puli, mudi, Belgians, etc all had only a few foundation dogs). Occasionally one gets genetic variety by crosses in the past but somehow, doing it now seems to be heresy. In some breeds (like my own), outcrosses aren’t yet useful — we don’t know the genetic mode of transmission for the big issue in Belgians of epilepsy, so it would be difficult to select a correct F2 or further generation to eliminate this disorder. The same may apply to the cancers in the Sennenhunds — it might be just as effective to select for studs out of male dogs that live longer than average cancer free. Outcrossing just to outcross is not, IMO, useful. One has to know what (and how) to select for and as the NBT issue shows, one has to be very honest about plusses and minuses about whatever genes one is adding or attempting to eliminate. It’s the rare individual (be they breeder, scientist or critic) who can accomplish such an endeavor without mishap.
   Peggy Richter

   
   
   • on December 24, 2011 at 1:50 pm Jackal73

     I was thinking of the St. Bernard myself, and also the Beauceron, the Bergamasco, etc. as viable outcrosses for the Sennenhunds. There are a lot of breeds where one could easily add in to increase diversity, yet still retain essential characteristics. Granted, there would be greater variability in appearance over the short term, but long term that could be winnowed back into nearer adherence to the standard.

     I agree that just outcrossing for the sake of outcrossing isn’t the way to go. One of the things bedeviling current “designer” crosses (which I don’t object to in theory except that people are ripped off by faddishly priced badly bred mill dogs, and that the treatment of parent dogs is so poor) is that they inherent the genetic load of both parent stocks, and this can make things worse rather than better.

     I suspect to root out the really pernicious issues (like cancers, that doubtless have a polyvalent genetic base), and things like epilepsy where the precise mechanism is not known, the best thing to do would be to conduct a very broad breeding experiment where everything was extremely general. I.e. in the case of Belgian shepherds, cross in GSD, DS, Berger Picard, Beauceron, Altdeutscher Hütehund, etc. etc. Maybe throw in a limited outcross with some of the spitz breeds that are virtually landrace, still used in herding and hunting, and so forth. Yes, what you get out will be hodge podge. But from this you can select healthy individuals with the physical and behavioural characteristics you want, and reconstitute a more consistent type. Of course the thing that makes everyone cringe is that this is not something that can viably work within a single *human* generation, and no one wants their “breed” to disappear during their lifetime.

     (And as an aside, I hope my coding is correct so that the umlaut shows properly. If not, my apologies.)

     
     
     • on December 24, 2011 at 1:52 pm Jackal73

       * inherit, not inherent.

       My apologies. I’m not a native English speaker, and sometimes these things still get by me.

       
       
6. on December 24, 2011 at 2:38 pm massugu

   Jackal, you’re doing just fine!

   My personal take on using Saints is that you still have to evaluate the strain. Show Saints are prone to a number of inherited ailments and are short-lived.

   As for good out-crosses. The best I’ve ever seen were the farm “shepherds” in S. WI. They were basically a GSD/Border Collie mix (w/ some other stuff thrown in on occasion.) They were a nice size (about 60/70 lbs), solid, smooth-coated, good cattle herders and guard dogs, long-lived and free of genetic disorders. I suspect that the same can be said for most of the mostly unrecognized land-races, such as American Bulldog, we’ve got going out there.

   
   
7. on December 25, 2011 at 10:27 am Peggy Richter

   if the farm shepherds in S. WI are without genetic disorders, it’s quite an accomplishment. BCs have PRA, CEA and GSDs have a host of issues too. An F1, F2, etc doesn’t eliminate these genes. It doesn’t even guarentee that the genes won’t show up homozygous in some offspring, unless you continiously bring in new blood. And that’s the problem. Your combination (or “return to a landrace”) methods only work as long as either one has a continiously open gene pool — which presumes that there are “non landrace” dogs out there to utilize, or the dogs one uses aren’t carriers or affected dogs — which requires testing that would work equally well in a “registered” line. The issue of combinations is interesting — one would think there are enough BCs to provide genetic diversity within the BC alone but the breeding for “trial winners” reduces that diversity quite a lot. Would they benefit from crossing to some other breed? The same applies to GSDs. There’s a lot of them out there. Some are military working dogs, seeing eye, etc. So do they “need” to combine or just eliminate some of the more excessive types? In CA, AB 1634 would have eliminated any dogs that weren’t registered, and weren’t “competition” dogs. Los Angeles and other areas have taken the wording virtually unchanged for local Mandatory spay/neuter. It eliminates any serious attempt to bring in new breeds or open an old one to “landrace” type dogs. I think that careful outcrosses are a good idea, but I don’t think they are a “cure for everything”, and I think that those who have landrace type dogs need to help fight shortsighted MSN rules that would preclude open or limited-open (“appendix”) registries, which is where I hope we will eventually go.
   Peggy Richter

   
   
8. on December 25, 2011 at 12:07 pm Jackal73

   So do they “need” to combine or just eliminate some of the more excessive types?

   With the caveat that “I am not a breeder” (obviously), for the GSD I’d say the answer is a resounding “yes”. I say that as someone whose breed of preference is the German shepherd dog — specifically working line, and DDR/Czech if I can get it. The problem is that the people who breed by and large tend to be the ones who are either into showing (and so breed for excessive type) or into sport/working, where the popular sire effect is equally a problem. Bad joints, intestinal issues, allergies, and a growing incidence of certain cancers are all through the breed, so that you’re as likely to get an unwell GSD off a no-registry no-planning farm breeding as you are going to a prominent breeder. (And going to the breeder is in no way a guarantee. Some are truly ethical, but they are a tiny subset.) That said, it could be different in different breeds.

   In CA, AB 1634 would have eliminated any dogs that weren’t registered, and weren’t “competition” dogs.

   I’m not in the U.S., but this is just nuts. There’s nothing wrong with crossbred dogs… unless they’re trying to eliminate all breeding altogether.

   
   
   • on December 25, 2011 at 2:09 pm Jess

     El Paso, Texas, amended their animal ordinance this year to prohibit breeding except for two dogs of the same breed, registered with an ‘approved’ registry. The ordinance even sets how much you can charge for a puppy.

     
     
9. on February 26, 2012 at 12:20 pm Frida

   I was the one who made that video, and am extremely astounded at all the attention it has been given.

   But FYI (all of you), I “accidentally” used a Bernese mountain dog because there just were no other pictures I was allowed to use, with only the Greater swiss. And the greyhound, while, yes, split and “controversial” to use in this way, is still way more functional than most breeds. Even the show-version is not a diseased, broken shadow of its former self, like with many other breeds.

   
   
   • on February 26, 2012 at 12:23 pm retrieverman

     The racing greys have a lot of osteosarcoma, so they aren’t super healthy either.

     
     
   • on February 26, 2012 at 2:16 pm DesertWindHounds

     Show Greyhounds have a number of problems, including heart and neurological disease, and very, very weird non-functional conformation. Show Greys also tend to be rather massive.

     Most of the show Greyhound breeders I am aware of that produce functional dogs also use NGA dogs or dogs of NGA descent in their breeding.

     
     
     • on February 27, 2012 at 12:10 am Pai

       Most show Greys looks completely unbalanced to me. Just weird proportions all around.

       
       

Comments are closed.