Documentary on canine genetics

[jemima harrison]

>So, if breeds were changed or diluted in order to reduce defects, there would be a conflict with maintaining the specific traits so desired in the individual breeds.<

Well, some cosmetic traits, maybem, but you wouldn't lose function. Before closed registries and the pursuit of some human-ordained idea of physical perfection, there were types rather than breeds: dogs that retrieved, herded, pointed, guarded, coursed, etc. They were genetically diverse because it was what they did, rather than how they looked, that defined them.

You might not even lose the look. You could outcross to another breed (as frequently happened in the past before the KCs became so proscriptive) and a few generations down the line, you could probably be back to type, only genetically more diverse and therefore healthier - as has been done, I believe, with dalmations (crossing to pointers).

Jemima

[protodog]

A geneticist at Indiana University, Robert Schaible, outcrossed a dalmatian to a pointer and then crossed back to dalmatians. (He, apparently, did not feel the need to refer to the offspring as dointers or paltatians.) After ten years (five generations), his dalmatians looked just like the AKC dalmatians, and he even convinced the AKC to register them. But, the Dalmatian Club of America freaked out because Schaible's dogs weren't pure and convinced the AKC not to allow the dogs, even though they were healthier than the AKC dalmatians.

[Carrie]

Wow, that is interesting.

I had a Himalayan cat once and learned that they are a combo of a Siamese (I hope I'm spelling these things right. lol) and a Persian cat. But, the two together do not on the first generation make a cat who looks like a Himalayan. They're sometimes a cat bearing very little resemblance to either. (I may be wrong. This is what I heard from either the breeder or read something...don't really remember.)

Anyhow, then those are bred back to one or the other and you get the Himalayan. Apparently the breed is not fixed so every so often they have to breed back to one or the other if the Himalayan is looking too much like a Persian and losing the Siamese traits and visa versa.

Sooooo........to get back on track, that's what you'd have...more diversity.

[jemima harrison]

Here's the dalmation/pointer data from UC Davis:

http://faculty.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/fa...ojects/HUU.htm

Looks like The Dalmation Club of America might be reconsidering whether or not to accept the 8th generation backcrosses. See VII: New Business towards the bottom of this:

http://www.thedca.org/Dec2005Board.html

Jemima

[rmci]

I came across the following book ad regarding this topic. I have not read the book, but wanted to share the ad for all interested:

Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin and Behavior
This controversial book by Raymond Coppinger lays out a persuasive case for why purebred dogs are in serious trouble today.
In the past, I followed the traditional "party line" about purebred dogs. Here are Three Sacred Truths held by virtually all dog clubs and virtually all show dog breeders:

• Purebreds must be preserved. The loss of any breed would be a tragedy.
  
• Responsible breeders should try to improve their breed.
  
• Breeding to "show standards" is the best way to preserve and improve breeds.

Then I read Ray Coppinger's book. And I was upset. Because Coppinger shot serious holes through the Three Sacred Truths. He challenged many other ideas, as well. I tossed the book aside. I brooded about it for awhile. And I decided to give it a second chance.

I'm glad I did.

Because once you get over your indignation, once you recognize the inescapable truth of Coppinger's insights, you realize, to your shock and dismay, that NONE of the Three Sacred Truths are true.

You realize, in fact, that if purebred dogs are to survive through the 21st century, our entire system of dog breeding must change.

This is a sobering concept.

And of course it is a threat to many current breeders, especially show dog breeders. They will need to get over their own indignation and their past ideas and adjust to new methods. In a dozen years or so, it is likely that many of Coppinger's ideas will be firmly rooted in the world of purebred dogs. This is a good thing.

This brilliant book is a must-read if you have any interest in breeding your dog. It is a must-read for the serious student of dog breeds and dog behavior. And it is a must-read for anyone who is interested in a scientific approach to dogs.

It is not the easiest book to read. Some chapters require some knowledge about genetics. But you can pick and choose which chapters you want to read -- and Chapter 7 (Household Dogs) makes eye-opening reading for everyone.

[flyndog]

Originally Posted by Raised By Wolves

I'd like to see some really old footage of some dog shows, and compare where we've taken the "look" of a dog, and if it actually has helped their "function". I guess this is fascinating to me, but a little off-topic in this discussion!

Me, too RBW. I have a digitized version of a page out of a 1936 newspaper that I keep over my desk. It has photos of cocker spaniels, english setters, dachshunds, pointers, boston terriers and a GSD. They *all* look very different today. The Cockers are my great-grandparents' dogs (they and my grandparents were breeders). I'll look for the scan and try to post it. I collect old training books, and especially in those pre-WWII are great photos that show what hunting and working dogs looked before they were further refined (screwed up) through popular breeding. Until the dog genome project came along, no one could know exactly what other icky characteristics might be carried on the same gene for coat color or texture (for example). I believe "icky" is a genetic term.
Kit

PS. Why is this in the Debate Forum?

[Raised By Wolves]

Originally Posted by flyndog

The Cockers are my great-grandparents' dogs (they and my grandparents were breeders).

LOL! The first dogs I ever knew"personally" were my grandmother's two cockers, Micky and Taffy. They seemed so huge in memory! But, I was only about five...very wee.

Originally Posted by Flyndog

I believe "icky" is a genetic term.

But you just can't say the word, (stop saying "it"!), without sounding "girly". Hence, a term rarely used by male type fellows don't you know.

Originally Posted by Flyndog

PS. Why is this in the Debate Forum?

"It's" safer that way...heh, heh, heh.