Is it time for new breeds???

[mulroony]

The other post about lack of genetic diversity in purebreeds made me wonder about this... (playing devil's advocate a bit here; I know it is similar to the other post, but not the same and Idid not want to de-rail the other post)

Is it time that we start to think about the creation of new breeds and diminshment of current breeds through responsible crossbreeding in order to I) create breeds that better fit our modern lifestyle and II) help diminish the abundance of genetic defects that are found in most breeds (increase biodiveristy)

[DaisySunshine]

Originally Posted by mulroony

The other post about lack of genetic diversity in purebreeds made me wonder about this... (playing devil's advocate a bit here; I know it is similar to the other post, but not the same and Idid not want to de-rail the other post)

Is it time that we start to think about the creation of new breeds and diminshment of current breeds through responsible crossbreeding in order to I) create breeds that better fit our modern lifestyle and II) help diminish the abundance of genetic defects that are found in most breeds (increase biodiveristy)

We have enough dogs. If someone wants a dog, send them to the pound to save a life.

[calgal]

I believe it's being done already in all the designer dogs.

[Ritz459]

It might sound good in theory, but here is my opinion.

We have changed the current purebreds so much through the years that some of them don't even act the way they did 80 years ago. Like the Doberman or the Bulldog, for example. I have a picture of Helen Keller with one of her Pitbulls, but the thing looks nothing like the PitBulls that we have today. It looks more like a Boston. So, IMO, the dogs that we have today fit our lifestyle, or as long as we have the right lifestyle. I think changing these breeds even more and taking them away from what they were bred to do originally is a shame.

And eventually down the road, the new breeds that we developed for their genetic deversity will be in the same situation as the purebreds that we have today. There will be limited gene pools and people will be saying, "Oh, we should add a new breed and chnage the old ones to fit our lifestyle." It would just a continuing trend that changed every 50 years or so.

It would just seem a shame to deminish certain breeds when they have played such a big part in our history. The reason for breeding the purebred dogs is to keep the breed alive and keep that part of history going. (Not to mention the love of the breed itself.)

If you want a dog that fits your lifestyle and has genetic deversity, go the shelter and adopt a mutt. I don't think we should be worrying about creating any new breeds until we have the overpopulation issue (and the mutts are unique "breeds" in themselves) under control.

[rmci]

Introducing new genes to the pool doesn't necessarily have to be considered a "new breed". As Ritz stated, the doberman and bulldog have changed quite a bit over the years and IMO it could be from crossbreeding to better the breed, sort of how the breeds were first developed.

[GoldenPup]

It's a good idea in theory...but I don't think it could really work.

You might find this interesting..

http://www.canine-genetics.com/relation.htm

GoldenPup

[rmci]

Originally Posted by GoldenPup

It's a good idea in theory...but I don't think it could really work.

You might find this interesting..

http://www.canine-genetics.com/relation.htm

GoldenPup

What won't work?

[GoldenPup]

To carefully create new breeds to fit people today, and increase the genetic biodiversity.
Characteristics would be defined for the 'breed' and it would be hard to get the gene pool wide enough without loosing sight of the goal...and without closing it. And it'd be difficult to find people that are knowldegable, willing and would be ethical about the whole thing and for responsible people to carry on the project in the future.

I hope that's not too confusing...

GoldenPup

[rmci]

Originally Posted by GoldenPup

To carefully create new breeds to fit people today, and increase the genetic biodiversity.
Characteristics would be defined for the 'breed' and it would be hard to get the gene pool wide enough without loosing sight of the goal...and without closing it. And it'd be difficult to find people that are knowldegable, willing and would be ethical about the whole thing and for responsible people to carry on the project in the future.

I hope that's not too confusing...

GoldenPup

No, not too confusing, just wanted clarification. should I be offended?
Breeds have been "redefined" or "adapted" for the best qualities before. Who was in charge of it then? Personally, though I love them like they are, I'd like to see bulldogs as they were originally bred.

[GoldenPup]

Offended no! Please don't be!

Many of the problems in breeds today are magnified by irresponsible breeding...and it seems easier said than done to keep a 'new' one from that fate. If the goal was to fit with the people and improve the genetics....well...that could be lost sight of.

I didn't mean to dig myself into a hole!

GoldenPup

[rmci]

Originally Posted by GoldenPup

Offended no! Please don't be!

Ok

Originally Posted by GoldenPup

Many of the problems in breeds today are magnified by irresponsible breeding...

I agree.

We have to remember that our current breeds were "created" and to keep them around we'd have to do something.

From the Documentary on canine genetics thread....

Originally Posted by Carrie

Yes, our purebred dogs are in serious trouble. There's another thread somewhere here which I started a while back about it. Just the very act of inbreeding or even line breeding IS what causes the genetic defects due to genetic drift, a phenomenon which occurs from breeding relatives. Since gene pools are small and all purebred dogs come from a relatively small/same ancestoral background, it is unavoidable. Mixing in another breed or mixes without those genes from those lines would be necessary to break up this genetic drift which, in and of itself causes defects; cancer, cardio problem, blindess, Von Willebrands, dysplasia, propensity to skin problems, collapsing tracheas, luxation and on and on.

So, no matter how good and responsible a breeder is, as long as purebreds are kept so "pure," bred with other purebreds, (even when it looks like they're not related closely....somewhere back there, they are most likely).... this phenomenon will continue and probably be even more prevelent as time goes on.

[KennelMom]

So, no matter how good and responsible a breeder is, as long as purebreds are kept so "pure," bred with other purebreds, (even when it looks like they're not related closely....somewhere back there, they are most likely).... this phenomenon will continue and probably be even more prevelent as time goes on.

This may be true for many of the pure breeds, but it is certainly NOT true for NGA greyhounds. They have a large gene pool which as resulted in an extremely healthy and hardy breed of dog. I can trace most of my dogs' parentage back to the 1800's. The AKC has occasionally had to open their studbook up to NGA dogs in order to replenish their breeding stock with new blood.

Perhaps because these dogs are bred to work (and not for appearance), breeders have direct financial incentive to breed healthy dogs...not just pretty ones.

[gaddylovesdogs]

With over 700 dog breeds in the world, why would we need MORE?

[mulroony]

I am more sugguesting not more but replacing current breeds. This is obviously demand based on the new life of dogs vs. what most of them were originally "designed" for...

[Cassiepeia]

How about just encouraging breeders to concentrate on improving the breeds we already have rather than dumping them (not literally) in favour of a new breed?

Cass.